Searching \ for '[PIC]: Updated Eagle Libraries?' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/pcbs.htm?key=eagle
Search entire site for: 'Updated Eagle Libraries?'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[PIC]: Updated Eagle Libraries?'
2005\07\02@205321 by Steve Murphy

flavicon
face
Am I the only one who can never find anything in the list archives? I
just wish I could search the archives via Google.

Does anyone have an updated Eagle (CadSoft) library including a 12F675?
I could probably figure out how to modify a library for this purpose
eventually, but would like to not take that detour right now. I've
searched the web and came up dry.

Thanks,

 --Steve

2005\07\02@211316 by Steve Murphy

flavicon
face

> Does anyone have an updated Eagle (CadSoft) library including a 12F675?

I guess the pinouts are the same for the 12C509 so I'll just use that.
Is that what everyone does? The Eagle PIC library is pretty stale.
Circuit Cellar just did an article on gEDA. Is that a better package
than Eagle?

2005\07\02@230532 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
>
>> Does anyone have an updated Eagle (CadSoft) library including a
>> 12F675?
>>
Olin posted his updated library on June 23...

Olin: is there some reason you can't put this on your pic development
tools webpage along with the ASPIC stuff?

As for the archives, it looks like the "full text search" at piclist.com
doesn't include the email headers (subject or sender) or names of
attachments, which can make finding this sort of thing difficult (James:
is that easy to change?)  A search for "weeks and pic10f" should turn
up the correct message: 2005/06/23/074845a

BillW

2005\07\02@231443 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
On Jul 2, 2005, at 6:13 PM, Steve Murphy wrote:

>> Does anyone have an updated Eagle (CadSoft) library including a
>> 12F675?
>
> I guess the pinouts are the same for the 12C509 so I'll just use that.

Don't do SMT that way.  I think the 675 is in a narrower package than
the c509...  (Hmm.  But looks like the same as the c509a comes in
BOTH widths...)

BillW

2005\07\03@013936 by Steve Murphy

flavicon
face
William Chops Westfield wrote:

>>
>>> Does anyone have an updated Eagle (CadSoft) library including a 12F675?
>>>
> Olin posted his updated library on June 23...
>
> Olin: is there some reason you can't put this on your pic development
> tools webpage along with the ASPIC stuff?
>
> As for the archives, it looks like the "full text search" at piclist.com
> doesn't include the email headers (subject or sender) or names of
> attachments, which can make finding this sort of thing difficult (James:
> is that easy to change?)  A search for "weeks and pic10f" should turn
> up the correct message: 2005/06/23/074845a
>
> BillW

And so it did! And the pic.lbr file worked like a charm in Eagle. THANK YOU!

Part of my frustration was that my Google search *did* result in a hit
on the piclist site:
http://www.piclist.com/techref/pcbcads.htm
That page said, "At least one library that you can be confident in is
the PIC <microchip/index.htm> library (pic.scr
</images/boards/pic.scr.txt>)  created by Olin Lathrop of EmbedInc.com
<http://www.embedinc.com/pic>." Well, the "library" on that page is a
pic.scr file, which is apparently a script. I ran it hoping that I just
didn't undertand and an .lbr file would magically appear after I ran it,
but Eagle just complained that the light version couldn't run that file.
I can only guess that the wrong file was posted to that page.

Thanks again,

 --Steve.

2005\07\03@090733 by olin piclist

face picon face
Steve Murphy wrote:
> Well, the "library" on that page is a
> pic.scr file, which is apparently a script.

There is no reason to guess.  The .SCR suffix is the standard suffix for an
Eagle script file.  Even a 2 second peek with a text editor would have made
that clear.

> I ran it hoping that I
> just didn't undertand and an .lbr file would magically appear after I
> ran it, but Eagle just complained that the light version couldn't run
> that file.
> I can only guess that the wrong file was posted to that page.

It sounds like the same file I posted a month or two ago to the PIClist.
Others were able to create a library from it just fine.


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com

2005\07\03@113834 by olin piclist

face picon face
William Chops Westfield wrote:
> Olin: is there some reason you can't put this on your pic development
> tools webpage along with the ASPIC stuff?

Just that its a bunch of work to create and test the release scripts, update
the web page, etc, when I really should be doing other things.  But, I've
done that now so it will be easier to make incremental changes going
forward.

There is now an Eagle tools download at
http://www.embedinc.com/pic/dload.htm.  The PIC library is in there, plus a
few other things like scripts and ULPs.  Install it and look around.


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com

2005\07\03@174736 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
>  [Olin's library in SCR format]
>> I ran it hoping that I just didn't undertand and an .lbr file
>>  would magically appear after I ran it, but Eagle just complained
>>  that the light version couldn't run that file.

Did you run the script from the library editor, or from the board
editor?  I'm pretty sure you need to run it from the library editor,
and there are assorted things one can do in the freeware library
editor that might result in the error you got from the board editor
(such as "add" a package CENTERED on the origin.)  I'm surprised
that it didn't result in other errors earlier, but it MIGHT be
possible...

BillW

2005\07\03@180641 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
On Jul 3, 2005, at 8:38 AM, Olin Lathrop wrote:

>> Olin: is there some reason you can't put this on your pic development
>> tools webpage along with the ASPIC stuff?
>
> Just that its a bunch of work to create and test the release scripts,
>  update the web page, etc, when I really should be doing other things.

Yeah; I've noticed that there's a lot more effort in creating and
maintaining a web page than most people expect.  (actually, in
*maintaining* ANY document, but web pages are probably the most
common sort of dynamic document that people run into.)  I was
hoping that since you already have a web page with similar content,
the incremental effort required would be relatively small..

> But, I've done that now so it will be easier to make
> incremental changes going forward.
>
Thank you very much!

BillW

2005\07\03@204414 by Steve Murphy

flavicon
face
Olin Lathrop wrote:

>Steve Murphy wrote:
>  
>
>>Well, the "library" on that page is a
>>pic.scr file, which is apparently a script.
>>    
>>
>
>There is no reason to guess.  The .SCR suffix is the standard suffix for an
>Eagle script file.  Even a 2 second peek with a text editor would have made
>that clear.
>  
>
Apparently I have irritated you and if that is so, I apologise.

{Quote hidden}

Probably just a stupid rookie mistake on my part. Thank you for
generously posting your PIC library for the benefit of others.

 --Steve.

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2005 , 2006 only
- Today
- New search...