KiCad Library Status

Community
1

In our continuing effort to improve the official KiCad libraries, there are now two pages on the KiCad wiki that show the status of the schematic symbols and footprint libraries:

Symbols: https://github.com/KiCad/kicad-library/wiki/Status-of-the-libraries

Footprints: https://github.com/KiCad/kicad-library/wiki/Footprint-Libraries

5 Likes
2

Also we’re currently working over the different libs and try to get them KLC-conforming. I redid several libs in the past weeks, using scripts to generate a plethora of parts with different variants, e.g. different resistors with different pitches, including matching 3D models. Here you can have a first peek:

Help for this effort is always welcome :wink:

Best,
JAN

1 Like
3

The Footprints table shows at a glance some things:

  1. There is no naming convention. Once you use acronyms Capacitors_THT next time Choke_Axial_ThroughHole. Today it looks weird, and no one can change it because the devs again sends a final warning.
  2. Some obvious words could be removed to make FPID short on schematic. For example: TO_SOT_Packages_SMD, anyone know that these are packages, or Housings_DIP. Look at your schematics and consider why the Footprint field must be so long: Housings_DFN_QFN:DFN-S-8-1EP_6x5mm_Pitch1.27mm. Geez, it is up to 48 characters! Again nothing to do without Civil War.
  3. The way you like them…
1 Like
4

ad 1) Especially all the Chok/Inductor/… repos will be deprecated and will be unified into

ad 2) It’s quite simple: We cannot easily delete repos (KiCAD project might break by that if repos are not available that are referenced in the project-file!), and doubling one just for the sake of rename does not make much sense IMHO
Also I actually like the longer names, as they allow for a good filtering of the packages with the FPFilters!

Best,
JAN

5

I was always alienated by the phrase “the way you like them”. Use a proper description or leave the field blank. Anything else looks weird if not unprofessional.

4 Likes
6

Yes, “As you like them” is an abomination. There is a current effort to fix this completely, should be merged soon :slight_smile:

7

@keruseykaryu you make some good points.

    1. I agree that that naming of some of these libs is too long, with unnecessary words. This is an ongoing process and I hope to improve these.

  2. A fix (with proper descriptions) has been submitted for this.

8

Yeah, surely the whole idea of the FPID is that the library gives the family, and the part name can be ambiguous, so “Resistor:Resistor_0603_etc” is verbose as is “Resistor:Res_0603_etc”. It just needs “Resistor:0603_etc”, which is no longer ambiguous under the new scheme.

“Resistor:R_0603_etc” seems like a reasonable compromise. Unfortunately renaming things causes a mess with compatibility… I guess eventually it will settle down.

I always assumed “as you like them” was a nod to Shakespeare :slight_smile:

9

The current duplication of LibName:PartName is unfortunate but AFAIK the footprint-filtering keywords don’t work on the library name, which is a (somewhat) minor issue.

The updated Inductor libs now use the L_ prefix rather that Inductor_ and (most of) the Connector libs have removed the Connector_ prefix entirely.

Hopefully in time the transition to sensible naming can be made without causing too much user drama with regard to compatibility.

2 Likes
10

Status of the footprint libraries has been updated - various “old” ones marked as deprecated and the “As you like them” descriptions have been fixed.

3 Likes
11

Long overdue, I was wasting time trying to figure out old and new names

12

Thank you.

Have one on me -> :beer: