No, there needs to be a footprint standard library. Three dozen or so standard footprints, drawn rigorously to standards, will cover tens of thousands of parts. (I'm talking things like EIA/IEC standard chip parts, JEDEC and JEITA transistors, diodes, and ICs, etc. Connectors not included!) Make that, rigorously and with documentation and traceability, and you can design boards fast and with great confidence in their manufacturability.
Unfortunately even professional EEs struggle with using standardization to their advantage, I have found. Partly this is vendors' fault as they don't make things clear at all. Partly it's just a nice competitive advantage for me and my employer as we spend far less time on footprints and have far fewer footprint errors, so I guess I shouldn't squawk too loudly....
There is a standard library and it's quite good, but manufacturers just puke out special footprints for any random thing. Often for good reasons, but often not, and it really doesn't matter if you need one in your design. You've just got to make it, period.
Is it documented and traceable now? It didn't seem to be last I looked, but I admittedly didn't look too hard (I've been using Altium for years). This is critical for a standard library: parts need to be compliant with standards (usually IPC-7351 plus the mechanical standard for that part), they probably need to be put on a grid (and it should be the same grid for all parts), and things need to be documented to the point that I can trace where that footprint came from, why it has the dimensions it does, and what it's good for. None of this is all that nasty, but it's the difference between "Footprint Club" and "Standard Library". Oh, and you probably need to record usage, since something that's been hand-assembled once is very different than something that's been used in production a couple million times.
> manufacturers just puke out special footprints for any random thing
Tell me about it! That said, familiarity with the standards will let you conclude that many things that look like they kinda-might-be standard but aren't obviously listed as such actually are standard things. This is key to saving time with a real standard library. (Diodes are the worst offenders here. The worst.)
> You've just got to make it, period.
Also known as "the refrain of the connector". Fuck connectors.
Unfortunately even professional EEs struggle with using standardization to their advantage, I have found. Partly this is vendors' fault as they don't make things clear at all. Partly it's just a nice competitive advantage for me and my employer as we spend far less time on footprints and have far fewer footprint errors, so I guess I shouldn't squawk too loudly....