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
So I used NVFlash (necessary for me to use when I went from 2.2 to 2.3 code), and I have CM7 release on the GTab right now. I know Nvidia just said they will support the harmony platform, but I was wondering if CM 6.1 has all the video acceleration built in or not. Also, since 7.0 is stable and 6.1 remains in beta, where does that leave the two in terms of bugs? Haven't seen any yet on 7...there buglog somewhere?
Thanks,
6.1 is based off Froyo source and 7.0 is based off Gingerbread source.
I have no idea if 6.1 was developed enough to include some of the latest nvidia drivers and such....
6.1 did move to 6.2 but I think development on it dropped shortly after and all efforts were directed towards CM7 and Gingerbread.
tcrews said:
6.1 is based off Froyo source and 7.0 is based off Gingerbread source.
I have no idea if 6.1 was developed enough to include some of the latest nvidia drivers and such....
6.1 did move to 6.2 but I think development on it dropped shortly after and all efforts were directed towards CM7 and Gingerbread.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, 2.2=froyo, 2.3=gingerbread.
Any idea where I could look up the details for CM6?
cm6 was abandoned months ago. Try either CM7 or one of the many other roms available. There are several nice froyo roms and gingerbread roms
So it's officially out.
Would it be too optimistic to wait to see a port of ics for archos gen 8? Apparently cyanogen team is waiting to get their hands on the source code and presumably they will build new cyanogenmod version very soon after that. Well, sooner or later but I'm sure they will make it.
Is it possible that the system requirements would be too rough for archos gen8? Now that we already have some kind of cyanogen ported would it be easier to make it again with cyanogenmod based on ics?
Not sure if my questions make any sense because I'm not very familiar with developing stuff. I just like to follow instructions and hack everything I own!
I think we will have ICS on our Gen8 devices, but i will be a experimental port, just like the cyanogen port (2.3.3) now...
I hope this community wont die!
Greets,
Lenn
Hi! This is maybe a general dev question, but I'd like to get an answer anyway:
what is exactly the link between an Android release and the kernel it works upon?
I noticed most recent releases use 3.0+ Linux kernels, and others (like the DSCs) use the Phoenix Universal Kernel, which is based on a 2.6.35... So I wonder: is ICS/JB in any way dependant on "newer" kernels?
I understand the answer must be closer to "no", since the pre-alpha build also uses a fork of the PUK, but the fact that it uses a *different version* makes me wonder how much work does it take to get a kernel ready for a newer release, and most importantly... why?
Thanks a lot! Total n00b here, but eager to know more.
Newer kernel not required at least for ICS.
All GB/ICS kernels are based on this kernel (and it's a Dell's lie about using same sources for 407 release as SoD was fixed there without switching timer source):
http://opensource.dell.com/releases/streak/4.05_and_4.07/
kibuuka successfully applied kgsl/genlock patch and it's the only thing actually needed for ICS.
List (a bit old) of changes in Phoenix kernel and later derivatives:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=25291276&postcount=3812
Hi guys i was wondering which cm or aosp was the first released for tablets im looking into porting for a device. what would be the minimum hardware requirement for instence 2.2 froyo.
gavster26 said:
Hi guys i was wondering which cm or aosp was the first released for tablets im looking into porting for a device. what would be the minimum hardware requirement for instence 2.2 froyo.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The first version of Cyanogenmod to run on tablets was Cyanogenmod 7 based on Android Gingerbread version 2.3.x. It ran on tablets such as the Advent Vega, Nook Color, HP Touchpad, Viewsonic G Tab, and ZTE V9. For AOSP, the first version of AOSP to run on tablets was Froyo Android version 2.2.x. It ran on tablets such as the Samsung Galaxy Tab. The main minimum requirements for Froyo Android 2.2.x are the device must have a touchscreen, gps, compass, accelerometer, camera, usb support and other sensor requirements. Additionally 92 MB of memory must be available to the kernel and the userspace, with a minimum of 150 MB available for the user's data (/data partition). For more information I would recommend checking out the Android compatibility definition for Froyo Android 2.2.x here.
Ok thankyou i got the info from your post. and the device is no where near capable for android. i was asked by a friend to look into it