KiCad Library Status

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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:

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

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

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

Thank you.

Have one on me -> :beer: