Bug Library editor...

Hi again,

And just one little question : why there is no 'duplicate'  function for symbols ?

On 5/12/2015 2:11 AM, Guillaume barrey wrote:

Hi again,

And just one little question : why there is no 'duplicate'  function for

symbols ?

 

Hi Guillame,

I made the same complaint, due to time constraints it wasn't added in.

It will be added in a future release

hth,

Jorge Garcia

A Python program could be used to search for all the possible duplicates externally. But this is only a workaround patch.

clem

Hi,

Any way, it seems that this issue of 'not looking in sub directories of library folder'  is more general. For example, the same applies to the 'library update all' function that never worked for me, because of that problem.

I refuse to put all my library in a single directory :

- it's really easier to found something in a well organized architecture than in a huge unreadable list (Just look at the list of library installed by default: it's so big that Cadsoft add a search tool !)

- I use the same architecture for storing all the component documentation (I have a directory with inside the same architecture, in which I store the datasheet, application note, an all the documents related to the component I use) : again it's easy to found something !

I though I was not the first to want to organize my library,. So, I came to the idea that maybe I wasn't doing the right thing, and maybe I should add all sub-directories in the library path parameter... but in that case I lose the organization in the control panel, since it will display all sub-directory at the same level (that way I can have only one hierarchical level !)

So Why Eagle will refuse to look into sub directories for all function but the control panel ? (the control panel  manage the display of all sub-directories ????)

Guillaume.

 

So Why Eagle will refuse to look into sub directories for all function

but the control panel ? (the control panel  manage the display of all

sub-directories ????)

 

Guillaume.

Hi Guillaume,

The devs are working on this, they recognize that it needs to be fixed

and we will hopefully have something soon.

Best Regards,

Jorge Garcia

Hi Jorge,

Thank you for this !

While they are working on the library, they should update it so the

packages are all stored in one section (but divided up into categories:

Thorough hole: axial, radial, etc smd: soic, tqfp, etc).   There is no need

to have 5000 different parts with 5000 different packages.

5000 different parts probably require no more than 75 different packages. 

The parts searching should be along the lines of Digikey's filtering...I

want an op amp, dual, through hole, 16 pin....each constraint narrows down

the choices. The current search is nearly useless. 

How do you list all available smd transistors, for example? All through

hole leds?

--

Web access to CadSoft support forums at www.eaglecentral.ca.  Where the CadSoft EAGLE community meets.

Hi,

You're right when you says than we don't need 5000 packages  ! that why I use only my libraries, which are well organized, as I said in the previous post.

I have a couple of library with only packages, the most common ones (SOT-23, SOIC TSSOP.....). When I create new device I copy the package from this library, so I know that the package is correct. When I need to change a little bit one of them, I do it in these libraries, and in the description, I note the change I made, and the date of the change, so I have a complete log for each package).

That way I maintain only a couple of package libraries (for the commons packages). And I know if a library use or not the latest version of the package, just by reading the description, then I still can choose to update or not to update in library. For that last reason, I don't like the idea of a package library, with a kind of link between device library and this package library. You can not control the update process, the update would be automatic, but this is risky.

A second reason is that all specific packages must stay within the library where it used.

I don't use the current search, because I don't need to : because it's easy to search in a small and well organized set of library, then because I rarely use a library from the Eagle set: I prefer to do my own symbol, with my own attributes, and the package are not really done as I would have done !

Guillaume.

You're right when you says than we don't need 5000 packages

I use only my libraries, which are well organized, as I said in the

previous post.  Why not let Eagle do the organization?

For that last reason, I don't like

the idea of a package library, with a kind of link between device

library and this package library. You can not control the update

process, the update would be automatic, but this is risky

Having all the packages in one area lets you easily see what you already

have available in the system, so you can select from them & keep track of

them.  Having 5000 all spread around is chaos, since you can't easily look

at them or list them.

If you need a new package for something (such as an update), create it in

the common area & use it.  So for example, you might have these packages in

the library:

TO220LIB

TO_220_BASIC             (USED BY 45 T0220LIB DEVICES)

TO_220_BASIC_REVA        (USED BY 617 T0220LIB DEVICES)

TO_220_NO_HOLE           (USED BY 29 TO220LIB DEVICES)

TO_220_NOTCH_TAB         (NOT USED BY ANY TO220LIB DEVICES)

TO_220_WIDE_TAB          (USED BY 11 TO220LIB DEVICES)

TO_220_EXTRA_NARROW_TAB  (USED BY 3 TO220LIB DEVICES)

TO_220_MOTOROLA_3JY_PKG  (USED BY 1 TO220LIB DEVICE)

The automatic counting makes it easier to identify which package is most

likely to be used

So then it is very easy to see EVERYTHING that is available for creating a

NEW or updating an OLD TO-220 device (because all of these packages are

listed in one place).  No more mystery or head scratching.  If none of

these are suitable, then a new package is created and added to the list.

The new package would be easily found for future use as well. Old packages

are generally not updated.

I hope this example highlights my idea.

--

Web access to CadSoft support forums at www.eaglecentral.ca.  Where the CadSoft EAGLE community meets.

Hi,

I see your point and this could be easier to manage packages if they are stored in the same location such as 'packages only libraries' and devices library, that don't have package but have a link to the packages library...

but...

First comment :

We already have the possibility of having a package only library. It's how I work: I have a main package library with all common standard package I use, I always design/modify common package in that library. All my other libraries that use one of these package have only copy of the package, a copy from the main package library.

I look for a package ? easy, I just need to search in that main package library !

The only thing you ask is the possibility to link the package to the main package library, instead of copying it.

Second comment :

automatic link have its limitations too :

- if you add a modification on a package in the main package library, all other devices from all other libraries will be updated : it often what we need and an automatic update will help, but no necessary.

For managing that, we need a function that list all  libraries that use this package, and in each library, the list of devices using that packages. And If we don't want to update one library using that package, we need a way to change the link or replace the link with a copy, in the device that need to preserve the old version.

- for all device, we need a way to easily manage the links: change link, replace a link by a local copy, and the reverse.

- since links are created between files, if you need to copy a library (to send to someone), you have to be sure you send all the related files, because if one file is missing, the library you sent is useless... and what will happen you send it do someone who already have a different version of your package library ? If he replace his file with the file you sent, some of his library may be broken, and if he keep his package library, he will not be able to open your devices !

- some devices have really special packages: they need to stayed in the library where they are used.

In other words, this need a library manager, with merging/updating functions etc......a lot of work !

The idea is not bad, but I think that need a lot of thinking before doing it !!!

Guillaume.