The PIN one marker of (Housings_QFP:LQFP-64_10x10mm_Pitch0.5mm) is not visible. It's removed by the manufacturer as it's too close to the pads. We should move the Pin1 marker line to the top.

(When I find time I'll provide a patch.)

I was starting a new project with STM32L0 uC which comes in various packages (LQFP64 and LQFP48 both with 0.5mm pitch and LQFP32 with 0.8mm pitch). ST's documentation suggests that the pad size for 0.5mm pitch should be (0.3 x 1.2)mm and for LQFP32 it should be (0.5x1.2)mm.

Unfortunately the pad sizes in this library didn't match sizes suggested by ST and are pretty inconsistent:

• LQFP with 0.4mm pitch
  • LQFP-64 - (1.2x0.24)mm
  • LQFP-128 - (1.0x0.2)mm
  • LQFP-176 - (1.0x0.23)mm
  • LQFP-216 - (1.12x0.24)mm
• LQFP with 0.5mm pitch (STM32L0 datasheets suggests (1.2x0.3)mm pads for LQFP-48 and -64)
  • LQFP-32 - (1.2x0.28)mm
  • LQFP-48 - (1.3x0.25)mm
  • LQFP-64 - (1.0x0.25)mm
  • LQFP-80 - (1.5x0.28)mm
  • LQFP-100 - (1.5x0.28)mm
  • LQFP-128 - (1.5x0.28)mm
  • LQFP-144 - (1.55x0.3)mm
  • LQFP-160 - (1.1x0.285)mm
  • LQFP-176 - (1.12x0.3)mm
  • LQFP-208 - (1.5x0.4)mm
• LQFP with 0.65mm pitch
  • LQFP-36 - (1.0x0.43)mm
  • LQFP-52-1EP - (1.18x0.4)mm
  • LQFP-52 - (1.0x0.25)mm
• LQFP with 0.8mm pitch (STM32L0 datasheet suggests (1.2x0.5)mm pads for LQFP-32)
  • LQFP-32 - (1.2x0.6)mm
  • LQFP-44 - (1.6x0.56)mm
  • LQFP-64 - (1.5x0.6)mm

I'm volunteering to clean up the footprints with 0.5mm and 0.8mm pitches if someone says that the values coming from ST docs are correct.

In this repo we have LQFP-44_10x10mm_Pitch0.8mm. It's a fine footprint to which any component would be happy be soldered.

However, at http://www.analog.com/media/en/technical-documentation/data-sheets/AD7722.pdf apparently the same footprint uses MQFP instead of LQFP. Same package size, same pin spacing, same pin count, etc.

In this case, do we want to have two duplicate footprints so that the user can identify the package to be used in CvPcb by the manufacturer name? Or use to the LQFP footprint even though it's not what ADI calls this package, so that we don't bloat the KiCad libraries? Having multiple footprints adds a bit of overhead, but with scripting and other automation isn't not much. But I'm unsure if there's any benefit to doing it.