Can we expect Dell to release the kernel source? Are they required to release it?
Yes.......
they are supposed to release it ...
weather they do is another thing...
and if they don't who's gona fight em ... no one can afford it
http://gpl-violations.org/
how do we tell them that we want the source of dell and get them to get it??
@MattAtDell tweeted the other day in reply to some other random user that he would look into it, so its a good outlook that the kernel source will be made available... This will probably be the first phone I'd be willing to try and build a kernel for, lol. I'm sure we'd have a vanilla build of Android 2.1 (probably a bit broken) already IF we had the kernel source, 1.6 and 2.1 run the same kernel version 2.6.29 (froyo is 2.6.32 so it might actually take a bit more effort). This also explains why they show a 2.1 build even though they've committed to go straight to 2.2.
Random user my arse..
He was the first one from Dell that bothered to respond to *MY*query.
You can already build a vanilla froyo including kernel, but its taking a lot of experimenting to get a working combination of settings (I'm using the codearoura (qualcomm) surf ) git..
I may try a generic android git to see if it works..
jmhalder said:
@MattAtDell tweeted the other day in reply to some other random user that he would look into it, so its a good outlook that the kernel source will be made available... This will probably be the first phone I'd be willing to try and build a kernel for, lol. I'm sure we'd have a vanilla build of Android 2.1 (probably a bit broken) already IF we had the kernel source, 1.6 and 2.1 run the same kernel version 2.6.29 (froyo is 2.6.32 so it might actually take a bit more effort). This also explains why they show a 2.1 build even though they've committed to go straight to 2.2.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Any success compiling a kernel 2.6.33+ for Streak?
Any success compiling a kernel for Dell Streak? Where to start for it? I've been trying cyanogen kernels, but they don't seem to work or maybe I am doing something wrong creating the boot.img file. Any doc for it?
Thanks in advance!
Kernel source for Dell Streak?
Hi,
I was wondering whether the android kernel uses some kind of standardized kernel versions and configurations that allow people to add a module to an existing kernel in, let's say a dell streak tablet/smartphone.
Is it easy to get the kernel configuration and patches to compile modules for the streak?
Do they put some kind of locking so that nobody having a jtag tool can make the configuration changes to make the kernel read a new module?
jsmanrique said:
Any success compiling a kernel for Dell Streak? Where to start for it? I've been trying cyanogen kernels, but they don't seem to work or maybe I am doing something wrong creating the boot.img file. Any doc for it?
Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ive had lots of success in building kernels, its just that none of them boot!
(technically I think this is known as not succeeding )
Building != Booting
So we have same situation... It's not a matter of building a kernel but booting it right on the device.
But what would be failing? Has anybody seen any log about what is happenning during boot to know what is failing? Because I would understand that a valid kernel would boot the device but some parts that would need propietary code wouldn't work (for example wifi, or whatever)... but no boot at all is quite strange.
Can anyone confirm at least a successful module compiling/running?
Not me
maxrfon said:
Can anyone confirm at least a successful module compiling/running?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not me! Is it really impossible the get it running?
If you ask dell for the linux source code, they must provide it. They have to make the exact source code available that can be used to compile the shipped binaries.
If they won't make it available upon request go inquire with http://gpl-violations.org as recommended earlier.
hey dcordes glad to see you here, I have asked via a few avenues, but was waiting till its available in the USA before pressing them further
theres a Guy popped up on modaco yesterday that thinks the boot.img needs 2k page file but 4k padding and suggested some changes to makeimg to get it to boot properly.
I'll play again later on
quiet bump, tweet by me:
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/3g0ebt
I also put something on twitter.
If you are as pissed as everybody about the lack of the sources, go write a mail to https://lists.gpl-violations.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
They are the attorney to each user of GPL licensed software ! They will tell you what to do. If you browse the archives they will advise to keep asking for sources. We did that. No it's time to collect evidence of the ignored requests and take further steps.
But first we should let that mailing list know ! If nobody will mail it in the next few days I will. I don't have the device but I hate industry going ignorant on customers. It is also an insult to everybody working on the Linux kernel source code. And that's many and includes myself.
cheers
dcordes said:
But first we should let that mailing list know ! If nobody will mail it in the next few days I will. I don't have the device but I hate industry going ignorant on customers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I do have the device.
http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/2010-September/002235.html
Related
Hey guys. So would anyone like to help me out in building an AOSP ROM for the LG Optimus S?
Currently, I have compiled the LG AOSP 2.2 kernel (zImage), and compiled the Android 2.2 AOSP system. Apparently now I need to get the LG vendor tree so I can compile that too into a working system? Can anyone help me out with that? This is my first time ever building a ROM from source code.
i hope someone will listen your help request
I hope so too... I hope so too.
I hope so too, would be nice to have another ROM option for the Optimus S. And this is a stepping stone to CyanogenMod on it
I'm also interested to create a fully working build of 2.2.2 AOSP Froyo.
But I'm new to the Android's world. I need that someone teach me how to build android from source. Also I need to know how to port the LG's drivers.....
I'm willing to help, but I can't program in any language. However, I know the basics, I can compile stuff, can do fairly well with the command line, I use Arch Linux as my main OS (so I can pretty much do compilations and stuff without a problem), etc.
I still don't know much about Android at this time, and contributing to this "project" may be my way of getting to know things
Count be in.. i m good with C,C++ ,shell scripts .tell me wat to do..i m new to android
Building Android from source can be quite tricky when proprietary software must be compiled in. I'm compiling since 2 months on gingerbread and nothing but phone is working... no USB,no camera, no bluetooth ... its now simply a phone^^
But, if your are lucky with Froyo you need only the source from android 2.2.x and the one shipped by LG (I know there are some sources for Optimus One, but don't know about Optimus S). Put it all together and compile the code - while/after compiling you will see lot of errors, there must be fixed by yours.
Have a look at cyanogen CM6.1, there have many fixes built in. If you would like to build a brand new system from scratch by yourself, i'll wish you many luck and lots of time
andy572 said:
Building Android from source can be quite tricky when proprietary software must be compiled in. I'm compiling since 2 months on gingerbread and nothing but phone is working... no USB,no camera, no bluetooth ... its now simply a phone^^
But, if your are lucky with Froyo you need only the source from android 2.2.x and the one shipped by LG (I know there are some sources for Optimus One, but don't know about Optimus S). Put it all together and compile the code - while/after compiling you will see lot of errors, there must be fixed by yours.
Have a look at cyanogen CM6.1, there have many fixes built in. If you would like to build a brand new system from scratch by yourself, i'll wish you many luck and lots of time
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So in your opinion it would be a lot easier to just build a CyanogenMod 6.1 ROM? Sounds like a plan. I read that I could just pull stuff from the Legend and use that as well? Could you help me with that stuff (pulling from the Legend source, that is)?
Legend stuff is less compatible then i thought. You can't use nothing from there.
As my work at 2.3 is now stopped (I haven't bugs related to working stuff, I have no idea what to do with 3d and gps and I too lazy to patch libcamera now) I hope to start work on CM6 next holiday's.
mik_os said:
Legend stuff is less compatible then i thought. You can't use nothing from there.
As my work at 2.3 is now stopped (I haven't bugs related to working stuff, I have no idea what to do with 3d and gps and I too lazy to patch libcamera now) I hope to start work on CM6 next holiday's.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We'll work on it together then? I started a GitHub. github.com/mrinehart93
mrinehart93 said:
We'll work on it together then? I started a GitHub. github.com/mrinehart93
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As I already got working GSM/Audio/WiFi/Bluetooth/USB/Sensors in 2.3 (port to 2.2 is easy) I will continue work in my repo https://github.com/mik9
Ypu can send your patches via "pull request" functionality.
mik_os said:
As I already got working GSM/Audio/WiFi/Bluetooth/USB/Sensors in 2.3 (port to 2.2 is easy) I will continue work in my repo https://github.com/mik9
Ypu can send your patches via "pull request" functionality.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I won't have any time to work on CM tonight or probably the rest of this week, but as soon as I do I'll set up my Github.
I've been following the development of so-called ROMs for the Vibrant (and other SGS devices), but I have yet to see a single AOSP ROM. Even when Samsung released the original kernel sources for 2.1, there were no AOSP 2.1 ROMs. Why not? Is it because they don't know which BLOBs to pull for insertion or the proper vendor overlays?
Some developers have done great work with SGS kernels (especially supercurio and his Voodoo kernels ... eugene373's tend to always wipe the internal SD card unnecessarily ...). But, a kernel does not a ROM make ... therefore I ask, what is truly missing to build an AOSP ROM. I've gone through the sources, but I don't follow makefiles too well.
I know we have another month or so before Samsung is obligated to release their 2.2 kernel sources, but that should have no impact on 2.1 AOSP ROMs. Therefore, I ask "what is the hold up?" What is missing, and what might I contribute ...
Need 2.2 source code...
2.1 is a dead horse--why bother when 2.2/2.3 are out?
The reason to bother is to at least get AOSP running. Once its on 2.1, it'll be easier to get 2.2 AOSP running on it. But claiming 2.1 is a "dead horse" is the wrong path ... the real question still stands: after 9 months on the market their still are no AOSP ROMs.
MIUI
Now that vibrant 2.2 source is released ... we finally have a REAL AOSP port and my all time favorite from my old HD2 the MIUI.... so keep your heads up and wait for it to get finished.
Get a custom rom. There are so many good devs doing them don't waste your time on AOSP....... until they release the actual source code...... on April 22
sarim.ali said:
Now that vibrant 2.2 source is released ... we finally have a REAL AOSP port and my all time favorite from my old HD2 the MIUI.... so keep your heads up and wait for it to get finished.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Except, the 2.2 source for the Vibrant has not been released. The SGH-T959D that shows Froyo sources on Samsung's site is for the Canadian Fascinate, not the US T-Mobile Vibrant. Samsung has yet to release the 2.2 sources.
oka1 said:
Get a custom rom. There are so many good devs doing them don't waste your time on AOSP....... until they release the actual source code...... on April 22
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Except the so-called "custom ROMs" are just modifications on the stock theme, a replacement kernel and a change of some of the supplied applications.
There is nothing close to a full "custom ROM" such as CyanogenMod or MIUI because we don't have Samsung's sources. What is passing for a "custom ROM" for the Vibrant are just repackaged files. It is akin to the "ROM cooking" that took place for the WinMo phones, not a truly ground-up build from source that is possible with Android.
EDT/Devs4Android has the MIUI build. From Source.
TW has a 2.2.1 in testing.
EDT has a 2.2.1 Beta released.
TW has a 2.3 AOSP in testing. From Source.
EDT has 2.2 AOSP in testing. From Source.
What you want is out there for you.
Watch the forums and reply when a call for Alpha testers is posted.
Hopefully it won't be long before you see a full TW/EDT/Devs4Android collaboration!
I think what the original poster is trying to ask (and I have the same question) is why were there never any real 2.1 AOSP, cyanogen5 for the vibrant. The source for 2.1 has been around for many months. Were some other proprietary bits missing, was the released source code such a mess that it was unbuildable, something else? With those questions in mind, why will things be any different when the 2.2 source comes out?
mattb3 said:
I think what the original poster is trying to ask (and I have the same question) is why were there never any real 2.1 AOSP, cyanogen5 for the vibrant. The source for 2.1 has been around for many months. Were some other proprietary bits missing, was the released source code such a mess that it was unbuildable, something else? With those questions in mind, why will things be any different when the 2.2 source comes out?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, this is more towards what I was getting at. We do not have Samsung's kernel sources for 2.2. And, we do not have a Samsung provided vendor overlay.
When we receive these two pieces, then a true AOSP build will be possible. However, we do have the 2.1 kernel sources, so why wasn't a true AOSP build possible then? What was missing, and can we actually expect Samsung to release the overlay that's needed?
Actually, that's true. I know it was old but why didn't anyone build a 2.1 cyanogen or aosp rom? (Not to say its easy.)
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
A noob question, kindly can someone explain what is the vendor overlay stuff?
Many thanks!
Where have you been?
rpcameron said:
I've been following the development of so-called ROMs for the Vibrant (and other SGS devices), but I have yet to see a single AOSP ROM. Even when Samsung released the original kernel sources for 2.1, there were no AOSP 2.1 ROMs. Why not? Is it because they don't know which BLOBs to pull for insertion or the proper vendor overlays?
Some developers have done great work with SGS kernels (especially supercurio and his Voodoo kernels ... eugene373's tend to always wipe the internal SD card unnecessarily ...). But, a kernel does not a ROM make ... therefore I ask, what is truly missing to build an AOSP ROM. I've gone through the sources, but I don't follow makefiles too well.
I know we have another month or so before Samsung is obligated to release their 2.2 kernel sources, but that should have no impact on 2.1 AOSP ROMs. Therefore, I ask "what is the hold up?" What is missing, and what might I contribute ...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Dude theres been a true AOSP ROM for the Vibrant since like december and thats CM 6.1
Im running it now
rpcameron said:
I've been following the development of so-called ROMs for the Vibrant (and other SGS devices), but I have yet to see a single AOSP ROM. Even when Samsung released the original kernel sources for 2.1, there were no AOSP 2.1 ROMs. Why not? Is it because they don't know which BLOBs to pull for insertion or the proper vendor overlays?
Some developers have done great work with SGS kernels (especially supercurio and his Voodoo kernels ... eugene373's tend to always wipe the internal SD card unnecessarily ...). But, a kernel does not a ROM make ... therefore I ask, what is truly missing to build an AOSP ROM. I've gone through the sources, but I don't follow makefiles too well.
I know we have another month or so before Samsung is obligated to release their 2.2 kernel sources, but that should have no impact on 2.1 AOSP ROMs. Therefore, I ask "what is the hold up?" What is missing, and what might I contribute ...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For probably the same reason that many phones with non AOSP firmware running 1.5/1.6 did not bother with AOSP 1.5/1.6 when they were released around the time 2.1 source hit. Why bother developing at all for what is essentially an "out of date" OS.
The only people it seems who actively continue to develop for existing (as opposed to new) firmware are manufacturers and carriers. This stupidity should be left to the manufacturers who still do this.
One of the larger snags way back then (sits in his rocking chair on the porch) was a lack of understanding of the phones proprietary aspects and how to work around them. But we have a fairly clear understanding of Samsung's boot process now, and RFS can now easily be turned into a distant memory.
I would wager a guess that the apathy towards 2.1 will not repeat itself once we have 2.2 source widely available and the low level similarities between 2.2 and 2.3 should have Gingerbread being more than the experiment it currently is. It's been barely more than a week since Eugene's little present manifested and there are already proper and stable kernels available.
Keep in mind that the devs we do have, have done a phenomenal job of cleaning up, speeding up, and drastically enhancing our existing 2.2 release. And perhaps to the point where many will not really care, though I know many would still like to see CyanogenMod6/7 properly on this phone.
Master&Slave™ said:
Dude theres been a true AOSP ROM for the Vibrant since like december and thats CM 6.1
Im running it now
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Um, that's not quite true. The CyanogenMod.com website lists 0 files available for download for either experimental or stable files. The CM6.1 you must be running is not a true CM build.
Also, CM is not AOSP, but rather AOSP with modifications.
phrozenflame said:
A noob question, kindly can someone explain what is the vendor overlay stuff?
Many thanks!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The vendor overlay tells the AOSP build system which proprietary files are needed from the device that are not available in source form. This includes things like GPS and video drivers, baseband firmware for wireless radios, &c.
hi everybody !
a month age i decided to compile a new rom for my Galaxy S absolutely from AOSP source ( branch 2.2.1_r1 ) after some compile-time problem and many painful steps to resolve ,eventually the rom successfully built and can boot it up flawlessly on emulator.
i create a nandroid backup of current rom and installed the compiled one. but i am facing new problem :
1- the phone successfully boots but after short while screen began
flicking several time and the phone go in deep sleep and never wakeup
( power button or menu button does not do any thing )
2- touch screen works only for some second that I can unlock the
phone
3- there is no network available
4- I have downloaded samsung opesource package for GT-I9000. it
contains a folder named 'platform' but when i merge these files to
AOSP , the compile process stops and fails again. if there any one can
help me which files from samsung source should i merge and how ? if
you now the answer and dont have spare time then some internet link or
online document is really useful .i have no problem studding and
reading and searching . reaching to target is my only hope .
I am really disappointed why there is not a good and complete step2step tutorial to compile an AOSP rom for galaxy s (GT-I9000) !!
such docs is available for phones like dell streak , desire , dream , magic , .... . i really want to to active these aspect on XDA forum and with help of all you ( mods and masters ) try to create such tutorial that any one in world can use to refer . i think XDA is the only reference on net to collect and create such help and document. please help me and leave PM or comment to agree ot disagree and from where can i start ?!! thank in advanced .
edit :
there is a google groups post that i send my question in Android-platform . if you prefer please join this group and active that post to ask any question related to 'galaxy s compile from source ' .
post located at http://groups.google.com/group/android-platform/browse_thread/thread/da5d6f18f3bd3c9b
I've seen several references to an alpha version of Gingerbread sources posted by Dell, so I looked here:
http://opensource.dell.com/releases/streak/
It appears Dell removed the Gingerbread folder. Does anybody know if they are still available somewhere?
This thread has something relevant, but I'd like to see the source as Dell posted it.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=999150
Tried to post this on the development forum, but I don't have the post count to do so.
Thanks.
AWD_Maniac said:
I've seen several references to an alpha version of Gingerbread sources posted by Dell, so I looked here:
http://opensource.dell.com/releases/streak/
It appears Dell removed the Gingerbread folder. Does anybody know if they are still available somewhere?
This thread has something relevant, but I'd like to see the source as Dell posted it.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=999150
Tried to post this on the development forum, but I don't have the post count to do so.
Thanks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I really dont know why they removed it, but I have the source.
I'll stick it in my dropbox..
If you want to get involved with getting it working better then I'm more than happy to share it! as I am having a bear with sensors .
Thank you very much. I've been following your progress on the Gingerstreak thread and wondered where you got the sources.
Off course I'd like to get involved, although this would be the second time I try to compile Android (the first was for a Sharp Netwalker, which I failed miserably - the kernel booted a console, but never got the Android system to come up). I have experience programming in C for microcontrollers but never worked on something this big before.
Just give me some pointers and I'll try my best =)
well its best to discuss it on IRC #dellstreak, but building the kernel isn't hard (once you got past the typos and static links in the source code).
sounds like you needed to work on the ramdisk, on your sharp.
we have all that working, but any help investigating why the sensors/power is messed up is very much appreciated.
I'll up the code now, I did start to set up a gitweb, but for some reason (quite possibly my stupidity) it doesnt want to sync with my source
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/29656352/Streak_GB_opensource.tar.gz
OK, this is beginning to give me the s**ts. Where are all the sources to the stuff that is being posted up here? I have been trying to build (rebuild) some of the ROMS on here, if for no other reason than to check there is no dodgy code in them, but also to learn from what everyone has done.
This is supposed to be a DEVELOPMENT forum, where source code is shared and discussed. Not a bazaar where the posters do a bit of hocus-pocus putting together roms from binaries of unknown source code. They fall like crumbs from the majestic sages, that do even more unknown hocus-pocus and cast them down to the unwashed masses to oooh and aahh at, as they give homage to the great compilers in the sky. What is this? Job security?
I have no idea what the legals are around this and I don't really care. The point is that the spirit of the GPL is you post sources (or patches against standard sources) along with any binaries. The binaries are only there to save us the bother of recompiling. The source is what is important in this forum. How else are others going to improve on the code if they can't see it?
I have posted on a couple of threads and/or contacted various people on here, most of whose response is "oh I didn't compile the actual source code, I just stuck it together from the binaries". One of them (thanks kevinlekiller) was kind enough to at least give me rundown on what he did (as best as he could remember - bit of a worry!), but even he didn't have access to the source code. Maybe I haven't looked in the right place, but it shouldn't be this frigging hard - it should be front and centre.
If I had my way, I would ban every ROM post that didn't have a clear link back to all the sources. That's what github etc is for!
Please, please, people, post the source first, binaries can be an afterthought. If you don't have access to the source code, then I reckon it shouldn't be here - who knows what in there? One of these days someone is going to innocently distribute some nefarious program with a ROM. It really isn't that hard to compile a ROM - takes about half an hour on my Linux laptop.
This is actually standard xda-developers policy: see http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=2031989&postcount=45 but seems to be widely ignored.
OK, I'll get off my soapbox now.
Edit: I realise this doesn't apply to everyone, some people are great about posting sources.
Wrong section buddy
Sent from my GT-S5830 using xda premium
djsky2011 said:
Wrong section buddy
Sent from my GT-S5830 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Huh? You're joking right? I'm discussing the sources not being available in this section, the source is a development topic. Hmm maybe this is such a common complaint that there is a separate section created for it. Sorry I'm getting crabby.
What section should it go in?
You take 30mins , mine takes 2h - it's different for everyone......
Furthermore , if they're basing a ROM off a ROM , what sources are there to be published ?
Furthermore , the sources can already be found online if you want CM7/AOSP:
http://github.com/teamhacksung/android_device_samsung_cooper
Herpderp Defy.
ok man make a rom then talk to us. most of roms here are like this u got new app,launcher and theme voila new rom is posted(no offense).so they cant give you source code.they make roms from the prebuilt ones like using stock or cm7 as base .most of the developers which made roms from source code had there github accounts link in there username ok i agree there are one or two developer who dont share but that dose not mean everyone here is just like them.ok
1.i can make a rom.
2.but i will not make a one unless i compiled it from source code.
3.sure i will share its source code.
i agree a little bit with you
EmoBoiix3 said:
You take 30mins , mine takes 2h - it's different for everyone......
Furthermore , if they're basing a ROM off a ROM , what sources are there to be published ?
Furthermore , the sources can already be found online if you want CM7/AOSP:
http://github.com/teamhacksung/android_device_samsung_cooper
Herpderp Defy.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Finally. Thank you! A link to the source code (actually the config files is just what I looking for).
So, since I have your attention, I see a couple of roms from people like vo-1, what is he doing just compiling the source (I have asked him, no reply)?
On the ROMS based on ROMS thing, while there is technically no source code you put through a compiler - there is still source - it is a list of all the changes made to that ROM.
I also can't believe people don't seem to use any sort of build environment - as in a build script - how else are we going to document what's been done and/or recreate it?
xdaboy122 said:
ok man make a rom then talk to us. most of roms here are like this u got new app,launcher and theme voila new rom is posted(no offense).so they cant give you source code.they make roms from the prebuilt ones like using stock or cm7 as base .most of the developers which made roms from source code had there github accounts link in there username ok i agree there are one or two developer who dont share but that dose not mean everyone here is just like them.ok
1.i can make a rom.
2.but i will not make a one unless i compiled it from source code.
3.sure i will share its source code.
i agree a little bit with you
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes I agree this does not apply to everyone. Some people do post source. I suppose my frustration was the source seemed to be forgotten and it shouldn't be so hard to track it down. Maybe I have spent too much time in the Linux world, where source code is king.
I will kick off a make on the source that EmoBoiix3 linked to (thanks mate) and see where we go from there!
A lot of roms here are based off other roms. So much they don't build it themselves, just some editing of the zip.
Other developers merely want to save the technobabble since most xda users are blind to programming.
divereigh said:
Huh? You're joking right? I'm discussing the sources not being available in this section, the source is a development topic. Hmm maybe this is such a common complaint that there is a separate section created for it. Sorry I'm getting crabby.
What section should it go in?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
still wrong section
this aint a source
this is a discusion so its supposed to be in general section
Should be in general section IMO.
But I fully agree with the OP. It is true lots of ROMs here are "cooked" from other ROMs and are not "developed" denovo. They are "theme" packs.
But for example we have two groups actively working on builds of CM 7.2, they each seem to be building from source and tweaking fixes in. It would really help if everyone used github. Pull a source, build, fix and commit to your fork. Anyone else can see what you changed, what revision of the tree you used, and can learn from your work and it could perhaps inspire them to fix something else, to contribute back to make *your* build better.
Sharing your code, even if it is just 5 line hack on teamhacksung / cyanogenmod /AOSP source, honours the GPL and helps our community grow stronger.
The GalaxyICS team is a great example, I can see where they've pulled their sources, what (hard) work they've done in what components. They are contributing all their work and knowledge back. And their fixes can be pulled into other projects easily, speeding up development and sharing that knowledge for everyone.
A phone like the Ace continually loses developers as they migrate to "better" phones, and we really need to share as much knowledge as possible to keep our software
Sometimes , changes just cannot be shown.....like framework-res tweaks!
Herpderp Defy.
EmoBoiix3 said:
Sometimes , changes just cannot be shown.....like framework-res tweaks!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What sort of tweaks are you thinking of? If it's a replaced image file, then that can be a separate file copied in with a script. If it's a changed text file, that can be done with patch or sed.
Let me give you an example of what I did with kevinlekiller's The End 2.5o rom. He based it on a vo-1 rom and did a fair number of replacing files, odexing etc. I produced this bash script (attached) along with his extra (binary) sources which I think replicated what he did. Self documenting! Everyone can see what is in there, maybe even change it again.
More details towards the bottom of this page: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1440396&page=31
I see where you are coming from and I sympathize. I'm not a developer, because I don't have the time and patience to work on source code , compile , debug etc.
The Rom's we have for the Galaxy Ace are already very good, the developers that have worked on them have/had the time and patience to iron out most the issues. So for me to try to come out with something better would seem futile.
I still like customizing these Rom's to a way that work better for me, and it doesn't involve having to spend lots of time, because like I said they are already very good. So it just ends up that a few files are added or changed.
Is that a bad thing? I think those that think it is should just not use those types of Rom's, everyone has a right to their opinion.
At first when you asked me for sources, I thought you meant the source code, since I already listed everything that was used in the first post. But then I realized you wanted direct sources (links) to those files. This is something I will do in the future, post the links of every file, I agree with you , things should be more documented, it would save everyone time instead of trial and error and possibly even giving up.
Anyways, I should conclude here, it is getting a long read.
divereigh said:
What sort of tweaks are you thinking of? If it's a replaced image file, then that can be a separate file copied in with a script. If it's a changed text file, that can be done with patch or sed.
Let me give you an example of what I did with kevinlekiller's The End 2.5o rom. He based it on a vo-1 rom and did a fair number of replacing files, odexing etc. I produced this bash script (attached) along with his extra (binary) sources which I think replicated what he did. Self documenting! Everyone can see what is in there, maybe even change it again.
More details towards the bottom of this page: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1440396&page=31
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
nice script, thats for sure
but u shouldnt expect everyone to be as geeky and provide such build script.
theres a big different between "providing source" that is mandatory by forum rules and "providing howto step by step" like in your script.
hell most of the roms (the one that is based on previous precompiled rom) were created 100% on windows machine without even touching linux, and maybe the rom creator (modder) doesnt have any clue what in the world is linux. maybe they even dont know that their windows machine do have terminal (cmd). so arent u asking for too much?
an0nym0us_ said:
nice script, thats for sure
but u shouldnt expect everyone to be as geeky and provide such build script.
theres a big different between "providing source" that is mandatory by forum rules and "providing howto step by step" like in your script.
hell most of the roms (the one that is based on previous precompiled rom) were created 100% on windows machine without even touching linux, and maybe the rom creator (modder) doesnt have any clue what in the world is linux. maybe they even dont know that their windows machine do have terminal (cmd). so arent u asking for too much?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually I only have 1 windows pc, all my other PC's are ubuntu / linux mint installed on them. I use windows on the main PC because most of my games work on it.
Edit: And, I didn't take offense to your post , it is valid, most people have no clue about linux.
kevinlekiller said:
Actually I only have 1 windows pc, all my other PC's are ubuntu / linux mint installed on them. I use windows on the main PC because most of my games work on it.
Edit: And, I didn't take offense to your post , it is valid, most people have no clue about linux.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
and no offence intended and sorry if anyone feels my post abit too offending
my point is a rom created from previous precompiled rom can be created 100% on windows machine.
in that case the rom also doesnt have sourcecode because it were created from already precompiled rom.
so if the modder just give a valid link to what he put/change it still suites the forum rules to provide source.
let say i've modded a cm rom, i've include ketuts oc kernel, i've include a launcher, and a filemanger, and a theme.
so if i just provide a valid link to the original cm rom, a link to ketuts oc kernel thread, a market link to the launcher, the filemanager and the theme, thats a valid source because the rom were modded from binary precompiled rom/kernel/launcher/filemanager/theme.
so the link to those binary precompiled rom/kernel/launcher/filemanager/theme is a valid "source".
divereigh said:
This is supposed to be a DEVELOPMENT forum, where source code is shared and discussed. Not a bazaar where the posters do a bit of hocus-pocus putting together roms from binaries of unknown source code.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree. There are two groups of devs:
"Real" developers. They provide repo links and detailed changelogs.
Modders. They should provide repo links and detailed changelogs.
A repo has the benefit of allowing peer review. Peer review improves code quality just like user tests and their reports do. Afterall, this is what XDA is about.
What I like about XDA is how people eagerly send in "works" notes. Not much information, but better than just trying out and telling nobody.
Exactly guys......it seems cyanogenmod has become the only alternative and devs here are only editing it and bringing out new firmware versions. Some also edit stock roms..........but no one here gave a thought of creating a new genre of custom rom right from source.
biswatmak said:
Exactly guys......it seems cyanogenmod has become the only alternative and devs here are only editing it and bringing out new firmware versions. Some also edit stock roms..........but no one here gave a thought of creating a new genre of custom rom right from source.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
its not as easy as it sounds, thats why the two main dogs are miui and cyanogenmod.
an0nym0us_ said:
nice script, thats for sure
but u shouldnt expect everyone to be as geeky and provide such build script.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I get that. I essentially built an interpreter and a source file (the build instructions). Way too much for most. However I think it would be great as developers if we provided be packaging tools so that others can use them and provide repeatable builds and automatically documented builds ("read the source luke").
an0nym0us_ said:
theres a big different between "providing source" that is mandatory by forum rules and "providing howto step by step" like in your script.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agreed, it isn't mandatory, however for the purposes of educating and peer-review it would be great. So my challenge is to make this easy for people.
an0nym0us_ said:
hell most of the roms (the one that is based on previous precompiled rom) were created 100% on windows machine without even touching linux, and maybe the rom creator (modder) doesnt have any clue what in the world is linux. maybe they even dont know that their windows machine do have terminal (cmd). so arent u asking for too much?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So we need a graphical version for Windows..
Lemme get some things out of the way.. I am a noob. I have searched. I have read some of the results from the search. I am overwhelmed by the 20+ pages of results (lol). I am not 100% sure this is the correct forum for this (not sure where else would be ).. I believe this is one of those things where I need help based on my situation.. Ok, so here I go.
I wish to start porting ICS to my phone. That's my goal. I have general understanding of how linux works, but I do not know much about the android specifics of how they work, or what needs to be modified for this to work. I do not plan to use the kitchen tool as I wish to learn this the hard way. I believe this will help me become more understanding in what I am doing. However, at this point I don't and that's why I'm here. My phone model is irrelevant almost because its prepaid and usually the communities don't even recognize their existence.. at least that's how I feel about it. But I digress. My phone is the zte warp by boost mobile and I am here to learn hopefully the things that will get me started on porting ICS to this phone. I right now believe that the best thing for me to learn is how the android related files work because as it is, I only looked at guides on how linux works and I understand most of it. I'm not sure that's the best thing that will help me port ics, but I'm certain it is important.
Please help me figure out where I should start in learning how to port ICS to my phone basically.
Thanks XDA
anyone? I am quite serious about wanting to do and go into this but I have yet one thread that anyone's ever replied to.. (or post iirc) which puts a damper on me
Snake X said:
Lemme get some things out of the way.. I am a noob. I have searched. I have read some of the results from the search. I am overwhelmed by the 20+ pages of results (lol). I am not 100% sure this is the correct forum for this (not sure where else would be ).. I believe this is one of those things where I need help based on my situation.. Ok, so here I go.
I wish to start porting ICS to my phone. That's my goal. I have general understanding of how linux works, but I do not know much about the android specifics of how they work, or what needs to be modified for this to work. I do not plan to use the kitchen tool as I wish to learn this the hard way. I believe this will help me become more understanding in what I am doing. However, at this point I don't and that's why I'm here. My phone model is irrelevant almost because its prepaid and usually the communities don't even recognize their existence.. at least that's how I feel about it. But I digress. My phone is the zte warp by boost mobile and I am here to learn hopefully the things that will get me started on porting ICS to this phone. I right now believe that the best thing for me to learn is how the android related files work because as it is, I only looked at guides on how linux works and I understand most of it. I'm not sure that's the best thing that will help me port ics, but I'm certain it is important.
Please help me figure out where I should start in learning how to port ICS to my phone basically.
Thanks XDA
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From my limited knowledge, I think it is a huge task undertaking, you can download Android source code from Google, the hard part will be the device driver development and porting for Linux kernel (and maybe portion of Android). If you are lucky, you can use the existing phone bootloader (or you have to port one). Understanding the inner of the phone (different chip set may need different device driver) will be another challenging task.
by the device driver development, you mean all the libs that go into the phone? Couldn't I just copy/paste the pre-existing libs that are already made for the phone? Also the phone im working with is a bit strange really.. noone has been able to compile the kernel from its source and get it to boot yet.. when it was compiled the zImage was different than that of the stock one.
And yeah, I have downloaded the aosp source.. I just need to know where to start at and the processes involved really
Snake X said:
by the device driver development, you mean all the libs that go into the phone? Couldn't I just copy/paste the pre-existing libs that are already made for the phone? Also the phone im working with is a bit strange really.. noone has been able to compile the kernel from its source and get it to boot yet.. when it was compiled the zImage was different than that of the stock one.
And yeah, I have downloaded the aosp source.. I just need to know where to start at and the processes involved really
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
To answer you question no the drivers and lib files are different for aosp based rooms then they are for the stock OEM from. The first step will be to get a working kernel. Without anything you do will be pointless
I'm somewhat interested in the same thing, and from what I've gathered, you'll need to do these things to begin ROM development:
1. Read every page on the AOSP site and grab a copy of the AOSP source. It probably wouldn't hurt to read the regular Android developer wiki as well.
2. Learn about Linux driver development:
http://lwn.net/Kernel/LDD3/ (this is apparently considered THE BOOK on Linux driver development)
http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/articles/drivers_linux
3. Learn pretty much every detail about your phone and its hardware, especially when it comes to how ROMs are installed on it. For example, my phone (the Droid X2) has a locked bootloader, so 2nd init has to be used to boot new ROMs, and this makes it so that we cannot update the kernel.
You can usually find this sort of information on your phone manufacturer's website. Sometimes they even post the source code to their phone's drivers, which is helpful.
4. Look at other ROMs (preferably for your phone) and see how they work. The source code is freely available for most popular ROMs.
For example: CyanogenMod keeps their source code in a public git repository: https://github.com/cyanogenmod
5. Get to work on porting!
I would highly recommend starting with something smaller, however, just as a start. One good jumping-off point is probably this guide: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1272270
If any part of this was wrong, or if I left something out, somebody feel free to correct me, I'm still a noob.
Thank you so much for your direction, however,, android kitchen.. im not sure about that because isnt that only ment for htc devices? My phone is made by zte
what device do you even have?
if it's stuck officialy on 2.1 or 2.2 there's no hope that if you even port it that it'll work
its the zte warp from boost mobile (prepaid). Btw if I compile an aosp ics launcher and put that on my phone whats the chances of that working?
edit: it uses 2.3.5
Well Sebastian responded on android forums, apparently zte is very bad at version control with their kernel sources. So when they complete one project, they use the same source for the next project, and what they release could be for anything. Apparently the blade source had the same issues, it took him a while to get them to correct the source
Sent from my N860 using Tapatalk
Yeah I noticed that there were ppl saying there were things similar but I'm not sure what will work or what won't.. guess its time to start a petition on zte to release the source code lol
edit: seems like zte's bein a bad company and violated the GNU GPL license for not providing a complete source code.. I compiled an email and sent it to someone who can proof read it and send it to the right person for this kinda thing.. danggit zte