Actions
Forum Thread Details
  • Replies 2 replies
  • Subscribers 178 subscribers
  • Views 853 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Related

Inconsistent (but identical) packages, 6.3 --> later...

WestfW

I recently loaded some older designs that were apparently last edited in Eagle 6.3 (and AFAIK, in good shape), using EAGLE 6.5, and it claims that the board and schematic are inconsistent because:

"Part R1 has inconsistent packages in schematic and board (0207/7 from rcl.lbr / 0207/7 from rcl.lbr)"

(repeated for several resistors...)

Um.  What? Those look like the same packages to me!  Any ideas on getting this working?  (I do seem to have the same problems on other designs edited with 6.3...)

 

I downloaded a copy of 7.1, hoping that this was a temporary problem in 6.5, but I get the same complaints.

Here are some relevant snips from the .brd/.sch files.

.sch:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>

<!DOCTYPE eagle SYSTEM "eagle.dtd">

<eagle version="6.3">

<drawing>

:

<part name="R1" library="rcl" deviceset="R-EU_" device="0207/7" value="10k"/>

 

.brd:

<element name="R1" library="rcl" package="0207/7" value="10k" x="65.5175" y="28.1051" smashed="yes" rot="R90">

 

This seems related but not identical to problems others have reported with extraneous (?) "@<number>" in package names.

Running Freeware on MacOSX.  The design is Open Source (nominally.  not released yet!), so I can provide the full design files without worries, if that will help.

  • On 17/11/2014 11:21 p.m., Bill Westfield wrote:

    I recently loaded some older designs that were apparently last edited in

    Eagle 6.3 (and AFAIK, in good shape), using EAGLE 6.5, and it claims

    that the board and schematic are inconsistent because:

    "Part R1 has inconsistent packages in schematic and board (0207/7 from

    rcl.lbr / 0207/7 from rcl.lbr)"

    (repeated for several resistors...)

     

     

    Hi Bill.

     

    V6.3 was a little wanting. Around v6.5, Eagle began doing more precise

    checks and many began detecting issues from earlier Schem/Board files.

     

    The schematic file contains the package details, as does the board file.

    It would seem you have a mismatch for some reason.

     

    I did a test on a schematic with one resistor and the board made from it.

     

    I got your error by changing just one character of one of the wires

    within the  package in one of the files.

     

    It would appear the package details need to be the same and somehow

    yours are different so compare the package elements in the XML  and you

    should find the problem.

     

    If no luck, post your files here

     

    HTH

    Warren

     

  • in reply to autodeskguest

    Indeed, the packages had different description fields:

    <description>&lt;b&gt;RESISTOR&lt;/b&gt;&lt;p&gt;

    type 0207, grid 7.5 mm</description>

    vs

    <description>&lt;b&gt;RESISTOR&lt;</description>

     

    Cutting and pasting so that they matched seems to have fixed my problem.  Was this an error in the older libraries?

    I'm not sure I'm convinced that the difference in <description> should have made the packages inconsistent.  Isn't that field pretty much just for human consumption?