Hi,

I was building a part with a mini-b usb connector, and the DRC was giving me an error b/c the drill hole wasn't electrically connected to pin 2. I thought that was odd, and fixed it up.

In the process, a couple of other lines got changed in the source file. I'm not entirely sure what happened there, but I submitted a pull request anyway. I believe the meat of the change is just removing "2" from the drill hole. If the rest is unnecessary, feel free to cherry pick.

Best,
Elliot.

I would like to push few more footprints for sockets to this repo (all "ebay" variants):

• usb 3.0 micro B, bottom mounted, smt
• usb 2.0 micro B, mid mount smt (here i might have additional issues with how such parts should look like)
• usb 2.0 micro B, bottom mounted, smt (as oposed to hybrid (smt+tht) available in this repo)
• usb 2.0 A smt http://pic01.uxsight.com/photo_new/20130813/c/ux_a13081300ux0333_ux_c.jpg
• microSD, self eject, TFP09-2-12B

So some renaming is most likely needed to existing parts eg.:

• µUSB sockets:
  Micro USB 2.0 - B - SMT/THT/Hybrid - Top/Bottom/MidMount
  http://gct.co/usb-connectors/images/micro-usb-mount-types.jpg
• SD - can be SelfEject/PushPush, Hinged, Push-Pull, and more (here mostly clarification is needed on what name should be used for types as there are many different names used by different retailers)
• For USB A sockets i don't even have slightest idea as they come in many shapes and mount types (often hybrid)

Also what is the naming convention for adding another variant of perfectly named part? Just add a number and increment? (especially when vendor/model is unknown)

Continuing discussion started at KiCad/kicad-library#1561. I don't see a better place, so why not start the discussion of connector footprints here?

How should we name the footprint libs? I shared some thoughts earlier on this at KiCad/Connectors_WAGO.pretty#1 (comment) and I'll reproduce my comments here:

Parts that fall into the category of interconnection are in the following libraries:
Connectors* (14 libraries)
Mechanical_Sockets
Modules (that one may a bit of a stretch)
Mounting_Holes
Pin_Headers
Socket_Strips
Sockets
TerminalBlocks* (2 libraries)
Wire_Connections
Wire_Pads

That is 24 libraries that the user could choose from. And they're scattered alphanumerically from C to W.

Let me think out loud about choosing an interconnection. Multiple vendors may have a suitable footprint. Since KiCad has a clear separation between logical (schematic) and physical (PCB), perhaps grouping by manufacturer is wrong. This means more places to look in case the user doesn't care about the vendor but is most interested in finding an interconnect by type/style/pitch/etc.

To me, this is a greater burden. I see a lot of overlap and hunting to find the desired interconnect. While I do like breaking things up a bit and can see how that can be simpler, perhaps a powerful search function is better than having a large number of libraries and only being able to see the contents of one library at a time? Naturally, this would require core developer effort.

And one smaller note. Why is is TerminalBlocks instead of Terminal_Blocks? In every other case I can see, words are separated by underscores or hyphens. This is the only example of CamelCase I see.

I believe one objective would be to bring together all of the various interconnect footprints together. Since we already have a good number of libraries that start with Connectors, that seems like a good place to start.

One initial question: Even with the pain of updating the repo names, is it best to make these libraries singular like we are doing with the new schematic symbol libraries? What's the conversation between singular and plural? KiCad/kicad-library#1402 (comment) is the discussion for symbol libraries and I think it holds here that singular sounds better than plural.

Let's start with something like this:

I dislike having a generic Connector.pretty repo, since it will likely turn into a wasteland, but there are so many connector types it may be the best way to go.

Edits:

1. 28 Aug - @evanshultz - Found my previous comment and included above; added Connector_Video
2. 31 Aug - @evanshultz - Removed Connector_DIMM, renamed Connector_Pin to Connector_Pin_Header and Connector_HDMI to Connector_Video, added more libs and descriptions
3. 3 Sep - @evanshultz - Change "Connector" to "Conn"

Just tried to refresh my local libs from github using the library wizard, and consistently got this error, which caused the whole procedure to fail:

Error: PARSE_ERROR: Expecting 'circle, rectangle, oval or trapezoid' in input/source 'https://github.com/KiCad/Connectors.pretty' line 34 offset 14.

I was able to refresh the other libraries only by omitting the update on this one.

KiCad Stable 4.0.5 Mac OS running on El Capitan. Loaded Librarian from within a project.

I don't see any of this type of terminal in any connector library. Are they there are I'm just missing them? If not, I'd like to create the footprints and submit a PR.

Since the naming seems to vary quite a bit, here's a picture of the terminal in question:
http://www.kangyang.com/Link_Photo/2120-000.jpg

I'm most familiar with seeing 0.187", 0.205", and 0.250" blade widths in a couple of varieties of hole size.

So then I have two questions:

• What name should this footprint family have? We need to pick some footprint naming convention for KiCad even if the industry has many names.
• Which library does it go in? Connectors.pretty sounds good to me, but maybe there's a better choice?

@jkriege2 Maybe you have some input?

The last version of kicad fail to download the library with this error:

Errors were encountered loading footprints
IO_ERROR: https GET command failed
Cannot get/download Zip archive: 'https://codeload.github.com/KiCad/Connect.pretty.git/zip/master'
for library path: 'https://github.com/KiCad/Connect.pretty.git'.
Reason: 'Not found'
from /build/buildd/kicad-0.201411151246+528419ubuntu14.04.1/kicad/pcbnew/github/github_plugin.cpp : remote_get_zip() : line 548

this seems to be a problem in the repo configuration (and in the kicad default mode of download libraries),

regards,
Luis

When running cvpcb.

Errors were encountered loading footprints
IO_ERROR: https GET command failed
Cannot get/download Zip archive: 'https://codeload.github.com/KiCad/Housings_TO-92.pretty.git/zip/master'
for library path: 'https://github.com/KiCad/Housings_TO-92.pretty'.
Reason: 'Not found'
from C:/Jenkins/workspace/windows-kicad-msys2-stable/src/kicad-4.0.0-rc1/pcbnew/github/github_plugin.cpp : remote_get_zip() : line 584

Hello everybody.

The 2 holes in many common DB connectors right-angled (DB9MC/DB9FC/DB15MC/DB15FC/DB25MC/DB25FC) are miss-aligned: too high, they should be placed in the middle of the 2 ranges of pins (it seems ok only in the DB37FC footprint).
Else the length of the connector is different on many models (EU, US, Asia, ...). Perhaps, theses connectors should be renamed with the length added or model family (EU, US) (so that people know that it can be different... to avoid bad surprise!) - but if length, which length ? (border to holes, or to first pins range) ;-)

Best regards.

PS: in reference messages on this forum : https://forum.kicad.info/t/error-in-d-sub-footprints-holes-positions/4099

The USB type A port seems to have backwards pin numbering.
I checked various data sheets (examples: http://www.molex.com/pdm_docs/sd/480370001_sd.pdf or http://keyelco.com/userAssets/file/M65p98.pdf) and they all number the pins from right to left, if looking into the connector from the front.

Also, the connector is missing the non-electrical mounting holes in the middle.

The distance between NPTH holes shall be 11.43 mm.

Specs here:

http://www.molex.com/pdm_docs/sd/955407886_sd.pdf

(sorry, I couldn't find the version without shield)

My (corrected) version:

RJ45.kicad_mod.txt

This "PINTST" footprint has an 0.63mm hole. There is no real-world test pin that small known to DigiKey or Mouser. 1.00 or 1.03mm is the smallest size in standard through-hole test pins.

The 3D model "Connect.3dshapes/PINTST.wrl", which looks like an undersized 1-pin header in blue, fits the 0.63 hole. It should be resized or replaced with some real part.

(I sent a board to fab using this footprint, assuming I could order a matching test pin. Oops. If anyone knows of a real-world 0.63mm test pin, let me know.)

Pinout of USB_B Footprint:
(1) (2)
(4) (3)

But it must be:
(2) (1)
(3) (4)

It was correct previously.