Hi,
I recently flashed nero v5 on my vibrant and noticed in the Quadrant app in System Information under Device->Fingerprint it is written: Samsung/SGH-T959/SGH-T959/SGH-T959:2.1-update1/ECLAIR/UVJFD:user/release-keys
I wanted to know what this means? does it mean I flashed the rom and i'm still on 2.1?
By the way it is written under System (in Quadrant):
SDK version: 2.2
ID: FROYO
OS name: Linux
OS version: 2.6.32.9
Righteous good query friend. I am on Nero4.1 and mine also says that. Very peculiar. Must be some leftover junk since these ROMs arent based off of full source yet. Any one else have any ideas?
^ what he said.
and same thing here.
^agreeeed......
The fingerprint on all newer builds should probably start reading correctly. The reason the fingerprint was edited on pre-official release froyo roms is so that you can see all the apps in the market. The reason you couldn't see all the apps before was because your phone said it had an os that technically didn't exist. Though like I said, now it does... so future builds should read correctly.
Whitehawkx said:
The fingerprint on all newer builds should probably start reading correctly. The reason the fingerprint was edited on pre-official release froyo roms is so that you can see all the apps in the market. The reason you couldn't see all the apps before was because your phone said it had an os that technically didn't exist. Though like I said, now it does... so future builds should read correctly.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Awesome explanation.
whitehawk, you are the man. i've been wondering why that was for a while now.
and now i know and knowing is half the battle. <---hahaha lil joke from gi joe
thx Whitehawkx
Related
Has anyone got Android 2.0 working on the hero? Seems "Steve Kondik" has got it running on his G1.
http://source.android.com/
the community there did it, among others also cyanogen ;-) and they ported it to g1.
You MIGHT have read about it, but:
1: The code ported to AOSP isn't complete yet, and there are a few things which still don't work, like calendar.
2: ROMs running on the G1 were either ported from droid/sholes or partly, from the SDK.
Than again, the G1 has a 2.6.29 kernel, which the Hero doesn't.
A.
and HTC has announced that there will be an 2.0 update for the HERO, but when it will be released only they know...
> darn connection; dbl post <
no1 is currently working on 2.6.29 for hero. isnt it? tht means we will have to wait for the official release.
dying4004 said:
no1 is currently working on 2.6.29 for hero. isnt it? tht means we will have to wait for the official release.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Im learning about this stuff as fast as I can but HTC will probably release it before I learn enough to port it. That said, I'm trying to become an uberdev
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
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 don't know if you read the news, that Notion Ink will release and already have released a beta of their Android 2.3.4 for their Adam device..
I have tested it, since its basically based on the 2.6.32.9 kernel we all got, and not the latest nvidia 2.6.36.3 which it should be
anyways its not worth porting at this stage, its unstable and its basically using all the apps from the adam device which i find less interesting after trying the hc 3.0 launcher and widget use, i am not going back to 2.2 soon.
but so you .. i tested it and there is nothing interesting about it.
DerArtem's cm7 release is probably much,much better..
How do you port?
Jon2555 said:
How do you port?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
experience is the keyword or "learn by doing"
I know that you can do it, but I ask you to tell what you change when you port(usually things, not specific), what files do you add, delete, change and what you must change to ported system work(Guide, HowTo or shortly explain) ?
Jon2555 said:
I know that you can do it, but I ask you to tell what you change when you port(usually things, not specific), what files do you add, delete, change and what you must change to ported system work(Guide, HowTo or shortly explain) ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thats no task to explain in a thread..
its all about knowledge and understanding the os, how android loads, and works in general and the more you change, the more you learn..
so "learn by doing" is not = you know i can do it, but a saying when you need to learn how to work with something and its DIY mostly.
I want to learn. Do you know good sites, books or how and from what did you learn?
I'm not understanding how kernels and ROMs connect. Can someone give me some extra insight?
[Hardware] <-- Unique to every phone
--
[Kernel] <--- Tells the OS how to talk to the hardware
--
[ROM] <--- Slightly confused. Is the OS in the Read only Memory, or has this term changed its "street" meaning?
I understand that most ROMs (e.g. CM7 and CM9) include both the kernel and the ROM, but can you flash these separately too?
I have a 1.5 year old thunderbolt that's rooted, and has CM7 which is based on gingerbread. I believe HTC has also released the kernel as open source, which is probably the reason I have CM7
Anyway, I guess what I'm looking for is an answer/guide/forum that explains why I can't install newer versions of android onto the already working/open source kernel I'm already running. Is it accurate to view the kernel as all the phone's drivers, or just the CPU driver? If that statement is true, why can't I load ICS or Jelly Bean onto my already existing set of drivers?
I'm thinking about starting a Wiki on this if 1) it doesn't already exist, and 2) I can wrap my brain around it enough to share with others!
Thanks to anyone with a response!
shadowrelic said:
I'm not understanding how kernels and ROMs connect. Can someone give me some extra insight?
[Hardware] <-- Unique to every phone
--
[Kernel] <--- Tells the OS how to talk to the hardware
--
[ROM] <--- Slightly confused. Is the OS in the Read only Memory, or has this term changed its "street" meaning?
I understand that most ROMs (e.g. CM7 and CM9) include both the kernel and the ROM, but can you flash these separately too?
I have a 1.5 year old thunderbolt that's rooted, and has CM7 which is based on gingerbread. I believe HTC has also released the kernel as open source, which is probably the reason I have CM7
Anyway, I guess what I'm looking for is an answer/guide/forum that explains why I can't install newer versions of android onto the already working/open source kernel I'm already running. Is it accurate to view the kernel as all the phone's drivers, or just the CPU driver? If that statement is true, why can't I load ICS or Jelly Bean onto my already existing set of drivers?
I'm thinking about starting a Wiki on this if 1) it doesn't already exist, and 2) I can wrap my brain around it enough to share with others!
Thanks to anyone with a response!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are correct about the ROM, but ROMs also include the kernel (if it didn't, or no kernel was flashed separately, the device would not boot). Yes, other kernels can be flashed on your existing ROM, but it's not necessarily going to be compatible.
Sort of, but there's a lot more than that. See here and here. Later versions of Android will require newer drivers,etc. which the existing kernel won't provide (they'll be outdated). Back porting and additional coding is theoretically possible, but insanely difficult (many times). Even after this some things may still not work.
Thanks for the insight, I was able to get a lot deeper into this with those links. For anyone else wandering down a similar path, you might as well stop now! Here are a few links:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1039217&page=2#17
http://www.cs.uwc.ac.za/~mmotlhabi/avmk.pdf
http://www.iteachandroid.com/2012/01/what-is-firmware-rom-and-firmware.html
So, if anyone else is still listening, I do have two more questions:
Do any phones have truly open source drivers? (a.k.a. higher probability of allowing old hardware to work with new android OS)
Is there any way to determine which phones will be supported by the custom-ROM community early on? I know the Nexus line doesn't have vendor modified code, is that the direction which would have the highest probability to stay at top of the Custom ROM curve without upgrading devices every year?
Thanks again for any insight! I hope I'm posting this in a Newb-Friendly forum!
shadowrelic said:
Thanks for the insight, I was able to get a lot deeper into this with those links. For anyone else wandering down a similar path, you might as well stop now! Here are a few links:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1039217&page=2#17
http://www.cs.uwc.ac.za/~mmotlhabi/avmk.pdf
http://www.iteachandroid.com/2012/01/what-is-firmware-rom-and-firmware.html
So, if anyone else is still listening, I do have two more questions:
Do any phones have truly open source drivers? (a.k.a. higher probability of allowing old hardware to work with new android OS)
Is there any way to determine which phones will be supported by the custom-ROM community early on? I know the Nexus line doesn't have vendor modified code, is that the direction which would have the highest probability to stay at top of the Custom ROM curve without upgrading devices every year?
Thanks again for any insight! I hope I'm posting this in a Newb-Friendly forum!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For both your questions, the Nexus-line devices would be the way to go. They usually have everything working on new Android versions the soonest, and Google always releases their code, etc.
Hi
i can use linux kernel (zimage) to update android kernel if yes ,how ?
thnx