I have been using the Light edition of Eagle 6.5.0 now for some time and am saving money towards going for the full edition; however the Library System for Schematics and PCB foot prints if I am using it correctly and I'm sure I am is terrible. To that end I am wanting to float this idea to the developers and am after any suggestions for possibilities of improving it further.
Firstly as much data as possible should be re usable so my idea so far comes down to this:
in SchematicPartsDataDir, LibName.lbr <- this would contain the basic data for the pin/smt pad numbers and names for a given part and a reference to a footprint in the schematic footprints library for that part.
in SchematicFootprints, <- this would have a list of all the available footprint types so they would only need to be defined once and not replicated over all the available Libraries - only a reference would be needed.
in PCBPartsDataDir, LibName.par <- this would contain the basic data for the pin/smt pad numbers and names mapped to given points of the physical pcb symbol, or in the event the symbol could be socketed the socket itself.
in PCBPartsFootPrints, <- this would have a list of all the possible PCB footprints so that again the data could be reference via PCBPartsData and be reusable.
to speed up searches in the SchematicPartsDataDir, SchematicFootprints, PCBPartsDataDir, PCBPartsFootPrints a database would be maintained by eagle containing data appropriate to each section in order to speed up searching.
the ability either as a script or a built in to merge two libraries from the same manufacturer together using a window with 3 panes so the user can select source A, source B, and output to destination C.
Schematic and PCB footprints would become reusable.
Searches would become easier and probably faster.
Library sizes would shrink.
Libraries, Schematics, PCBs and all related data would be easier to maintain.
Its easier to fix it now and have a better system working forward than being stuck with a limited library system.
Possibly would break compatibility with existing libraries.
Would take the developers times to do.
Would cost Cadsoft some money.
Reversal - of disadvantages.
Would allow easier and greater development of the Cad libraries with a hugely increased number of parts.
Would probably increase sales as word of the new LMS got out.
It would provide Eagle with the most advanced library editing solution I have seen on the market.
So what is everyone else's opinion on this ?