Actions
Forum Thread Details
  • State Verified Answer
  • Replies 14 replies
  • Subscribers 180 subscribers
  • Views 1333 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Related

Bug Library editor...

kikoun

Hello,

 

Nice new library editor, for this 7.3 version... The overall view and the 'duplicate'  function would be a is a great idea... at least if it was working !

First thing I tried, I open a library, tried to duplicate a device, and all I get is this error :

 

'can't open 'My_libraryname.lbr''

No such file or directory

 

The reason is quite simple: Eagle assume that the opened library is stored in one of the path defined in the Libraries directories option, but don't look into sub directories... GRrrrrrrrrr

 

This is a bug: when you edit a file (it could be a anything: a text document, a video, a 3D model etc....) you use the name and the path of the the file you are editing ! you don't assume the location of the file !!!!!

 

There are 2 workarounds :

- You put all your library in the same directory, without any sub-directory but you have to like messy organisation....

- Or each time you plan to use that new 'duplicate' functionality, first you move the Lbr at the top of your library directory, you edit the library, then you move back the lbr file where it belong (and do the same for the  .l#1, .L#2 files !!!).

 

Guillaume.

Parents
  • 0

    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.

     

Reply
  • 0

    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.

     

Children
  • 0 in reply to e14candies

    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.