Database Info

defy cm10.1 alpha

this is just a demo of a kernel based on quarx 3.0.8 kernel sources,maybe later i'll try to merge several fixes or something but till then lets say i've reached a small milestone like finishing to compile this kernel,booting it up,take some screenshots from it.
known bugs,just like initial quarxs or blenchose commits.
Warning:flash at your own responsability,works only with cm 10.1 under boot options by ticking 2ndboot and ticking adb disable
link to kernel:http://www.mediafire.com/?vdjoj438tlvz2lw
NOTE:kernel sources are based on quarx repo on github:https://github.com/Quarx2k/jordan-kernel

What's this? A fix for CM10.1 23/01?

I think it's a 3.0 kernel... so not a fix.

i think , quarx2k also made many changes with his CM 10.1-3.0 branch which corresponds to the 3.0 kernel ..( eg - hwcomposer sources)
so it will be better if u can compile and upload both ROM + KERNEL package in order to have maximum working efficiency

Shubhamqweasd said:
i think , quarx2k also made many changes with his CM 10.1-3.0 branch which corresponds to the 3.0 kernel ..( eg - hwcomposer sources)
so it will be better if u can compile and upload both ROM + KERNEL package in order to have maximum working efficiency
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you're right,because i could not boot this kernel on 4.1.2 so tried with 4.2.1 without adb manual boot,the difference is that i added forced module unloading and allow old eabi binaries to run with this kernel trying to get some backwards compatibility thus my conclusion is that either this kernel needs scratch bins in the os for propper functioning

rodrigoswz said:
What's this? A fix for CM10.1 23/01?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
nope,my bad to mention that is an kernel build on quarx repo

You know opening a new thread was unnecessary as we already have a 3.0 kernel thread and CM10.1 also.... BTW the kernel and CM10.1 are both easily compiled if you know what you're doing
Let's Go ^_^

Kayant said:
You know opening a new thread was unnecessary as we already have a 3.0 kernel thread and CM10.1 also.... BTW the kernel and CM10.1 are both easily compiled if you know what you're doing
Let's Go ^_^
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The thread is already reported
Sent from my MB526 using xda premium

nogoodusername said:
The thread is already reported
Sent from my MB526 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thank you for your support nogood username,that helps alot and to what i can do for this comunity,for example my own kernel sources for linux kernel 3.7.5,as of this post was just an test to see if it works and 3.7.5 yup it likes the cpcap drivers and firmware,just some gpu issues to display under menuconfig

drunk_ryder24 said:
thank you for your support nogood username,that helps alot and to what i can do for this comunity,for example my own kernel sources for linux kernel 3.7.5,as of this post was just an test to see if it works and 3.7.5 yup it likes the cpcap drivers and firmware,just some gpu issues to display under menuconfig
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I appreciate your work, and I'm not the one that reported (as far as I remember)
Sent from my MB526 using xda premium

nogoodusername said:
I appreciate your work, and I'm not the one that reported (as far as I remember)
Sent from my MB526 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
maybe i started wrong but my intention was to give some help for the comunity,as for my attempt on kernel 3.7.5:bump cant port sgx drivers,got cpcap to show up in menuconfig even mapphone but its like impossible to show up,tried a workaround with similar devices to get the gpu drivers but no chance

drunk_ryder24 said:
maybe i started wrong but my intention was to give some help for the comunity,as for my attempt on kernel 3.7.5:bump cant port sgx drivers,got cpcap to show up in menuconfig even mapphone but its like impossible to show up,tried a workaround with similar devices to get the gpu drivers but no chance
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for your efforts I think I was the one that reported it can't remember now ..... The reason I did it was because like you said you're trying to port 3.7.5 which we already have thread for where you cab discuss about porting 3.0.0 kernels
Some advice and questions......
I was wondering why are you trying to port 3.7.5 which is not even on any other android device yet??
IMO I think a higher version of the 3.0 base kernel is not needed as am sure most of the new things in it would not benefit us as we probably couldn't use it anyway since we have old drivers, old cpu/gpu etc.....
Getting it to show up in defconfig is not the hard part you can activate anything you want from there they are just the configuring files the hard part is configuring the activated drivers for the defy which requires dev work and debugging just look Quark's commits
I think what we have is fine and I don't think anything much higher would be any benefit for us also we have older drivers and the things we need for 4.2 to work properly are in 3.0.8 like the new wifi drivers maybe Quarx will update it to a higher minor version later like he did with 2.6.32.9 to 2.6.32.60......
Don't worry yourself to much there are many other things you can do to help us in the defy community. This is not worth your time trust me from experience :cyclops:
Btw the menuconfig iust activates the stuff you want for your device and mapphone_defconfig is where all the options you picked from menuconfig is stored. Each defconfig is different as they are specify to one device.

Kayant said:
Thanks for your efforts I think I was the one that reported it can't remember now ..... The reason I did it was because like you said you're trying to port 3.7.5 which we already have thread for where you cab discuss about porting 3.0.0 kernels
Some advice and questions......
I was wondering why are you trying to port 3.7.5 which is not even on any other android device yet??
IMO I think a higher version of the 3.0 base kernel is not needed as am sure most of the new things in it would not benefit us as we probably couldn't use it anyway since we have old drivers, old cpu/gpu etc.....
Getting it to show up in defconfig is not the hard part you can activate anything you want from there they are just the configuring files the hard part is configuring the activated drivers for the defy which requires dev work and debugging just look Quark's commits
I think what we have is fine and I don't think anything much higher would be any benefit for us also we have older drivers and the things we need for 4.2 to work properly are in 3.0.8 like the new wifi drivers maybe Quarx will update it to a higher minor version later like he did with 2.6.32.9 to 2.6.32.60......
Don't worry yourself to much there are many other things you can do to help us in the defy community. This is not worth your time trust me from experience :cyclops:
Btw the menuconfig iust activates the stuff you want for your device and mapphone_defconfig is where all the options you picked from menuconfig is stored. Each defconfig is different as they are specify to one device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thats the whole point,everithing gets trouc the cross compiler even battery and every hw aspect for defy,but cant seem to get sgx drivers on it it boots but only backlight flickers,also the importance of this is that one day we might bump in a problem like this(maybe future android versions will use kernel 3.7.5 as default)and my opinion is that we should have some widen experience about it in any way possible

Kayant said:
Thanks for your efforts I think I was the one that reported it can't remember now ..... The reason I did it was because like you said you're trying to port 3.7.5 which we already have thread for where you cab discuss about porting 3.0.0 kernels
Some advice and questions......
I was wondering why are you trying to port 3.7.5 which is not even on any other android device yet??
IMO I think a higher version of the 3.0 base kernel is not needed as am sure most of the new things in it would not benefit us as we probably couldn't use it anyway since we have old drivers, old cpu/gpu etc.....
Getting it to show up in defconfig is not the hard part you can activate anything you want from there they are just the configuring files the hard part is configuring the activated drivers for the defy which requires dev work and debugging just look Quark's commits
I think what we have is fine and I don't think anything much higher would be any benefit for us also we have older drivers and the things we need for 4.2 to work properly are in 3.0.8 like the new wifi drivers maybe Quarx will update it to a higher minor version later like he did with 2.6.32.9 to 2.6.32.60......
Don't worry yourself to much there are many other things you can do to help us in the defy community. This is not worth your time trust me from experience :cyclops:
Btw the menuconfig iust activates the stuff you want for your device and mapphone_defconfig is where all the options you picked from menuconfig is stored. Each defconfig is different as they are specify to one device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
and how is that a problem if someone wants to attempt a higher version kernel?
if there is no benefit then there is no loss either

I understand your point and even I know nothing is impossible.
BUT, there has to be a logic in things that you are doing, isn't it? Believe me, Nobody is discouraging him. Anyways, its a matter of understanding and not a debate.
FYI and to my knowledge, very few devices like xperia T/V has kernel 3.4

abhifx said:
and how is that a problem if someone wants to attempt a higher version kernel?
if there is no benefit then there is no loss either
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Like brajesh.sharma87 said am not trying to discourage him anything am just giving him some advice. This is mainly just my opinion based on experiences I had trying to port the newer wifi drivers from 3.0 base to our 2.6 kernel..... he doesn't have to listen to what am saying.
Like brajesh.sharma87 said it's matter of knowledge because the Linux kernel changes so much between versions and the work Quarx has done on the 3.0.8 base may become outdated and needs to be changed to get it to work for the new base.
Am just trying to put things into prospective as I think it's not worth his time and effort trying to port a higher version kernel without good knowledge and experience on kernel porting. Again that's for him to decide.
Drunk_ryder24 if you still want to try here are is something you can do that may help -
If you haven't already tried this but try cherry-picking Quarx's commits from the p-android-omap3-3.0 branch since the code is related to the defy but keep in mind not all of Quarx's work may work on the new base.

Kayant said:
Like brajesh.sharma87 said am not trying to discourage him anything am just giving him some advice. This is mainly just my opinion based on experiences I had trying to port the newer wifi drivers from 3.0 base to our 2.6 kernel..... he doesn't have to listen to what am saying.
Like brajesh.sharma87 said it's matter of knowledge because the Linux kernel changes so much between versions and the work Quarx has done on the 3.0.8 base may become outdated and needs to be changed to get it to work for the new base.
Am just trying to put things into prospective as I think it's not worth his time and effort trying to port a higher version kernel without good knowledge and experience on kernel porting. Again that's for him to decide.
Drunk_ryder24 if you still want to try here are is something you can do that may help -
If you haven't already tried this but try cherry-picking Quarx's commits from the p-android-omap3-3.0 branch since the code is related to the defy but keep in mind not all of Quarx's work may work on the new base.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
well ive done cherry picking from quarx repo and i must say that quarx done an excelent job compiling the modules since they are recognized and compiled by the toolchain with no major errors,just a few ignorable errors,boy quarx must have nerves of steel to bare so much time in developing from scratch,oh btw i will post this as a reply in 4.1.2 tread,ive mixed kernel zimage and ramdisk of quarx 2.6.32.60 after applying sevenrock's kernel 2.6.32.9-the whole point is that it might have been something changed in either ril or wifi module cause 2.6.32.60 seems just a little laggy but no ringtone bug or reboots by this method

drunk_ryder24 said:
well ive done cherry picking from quarx repo and i must say that quarx done an excelent job compiling the modules since they are recognized and compiled by the toolchain with no major errors,just a few ignorable errors,boy quarx must have nerves of steel to bare so much time in developing from scratch,oh btw i will post this as a reply in 4.1.2 tread,ive mixed kernel zimage and ramdisk of quarx 2.6.32.60 after applying sevenrock's kernel 2.6.32.9-the whole point is that it might have been something changed in either ril or wifi module cause 2.6.32.60 seems just a little laggy but no ringtone bug or reboots by this method
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That sounds good am I bit surprised it worked so well with not that much errors but thats's good Yh I know Quarx is unstoppable and good luck with the project ..... If you need any more advice or help just shoot me up with a pm and I will see what I can do

kayant said:
that sounds good am i bit surprised it worked so well with not that much errors but thats's good yh i know quarx is unstoppable and good luck with the project :d..... If you need any more advice or help just shoot me up with a pm and i will see what i can do
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thanks for your support,its wellcomed

Why an official CM 10 is not possible for Atrix 2?

This might be a noob question, but I want to know that since our bootloader is locked, how we are able to port Cynaogenmod and other ROMs like Paranoid Android to Atrix 2? Recently official AOSP ROM was released for Moto RAZR which also has a locked bootloader. So why we can't have an official CM for Atrix 2?
What difference is there between a CM port and an official CM for unlocked bootloader device ?
Just some noob questions which came in my mind. Please clarify. Sorry for a silly question.

androiddecoded said:
This might be a noob question, but I want to know that since our bootloader is locked, how we are able to port Cynaogenmod and other ROMs like Paranoid Android to Atrix 2? Recently official AOSP ROM was released for Moto RAZR which also has a locked bootloader. So why we can't have an official CM for Atrix 2?
What difference is there between a CM port and an official CM for unlocked bootloader device ?
Just some noob questions which came in my mind. Please clarify. Sorry for a silly question.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It all surrounds around the kernel. Unlocked bootloader devices can run "custom" compiled kernels, and CM and the other "custom" non-stock based roms all have their own kernels too.
The reason that we can run "unofficial" versions is because your devs (me included), have to compile the ROM around the "stock" kernel, so that it can be installed right along side the stock kernel, and run without issue. All of the AOSPA, and PA, and such are the same exact way.
Anything that can be done on the Razr can pretty much be done on this phone. The thing is that your dev team is much smaller on the A2 as it was not a very popular device, so it takes longer if ever to get something since the devs make the choice to work on a specific ROM or not.
Also the "official" CM compiles are done by the cyanogen mod team themselves and they do all the coding and have an auto compile server to get the versions out to the public, so again it is up to the developers there to decide which phones they want to support. Again though if you look all the "official" build devices ALL have unlocked bootloaders in some form or fashion, so that the "custom" compiled kernel will install with out issue.

Actually, it looks like Hashcode and dhacker recently got the RAZR included in the "official" CM nightlies... http://wiki.cyanogenmod.org/w/Spyder_Info
So, if something stable enough is worked out for the A2 (i.e. kexec), then we could possibly see an "official" edison of some sort at some point... in theory.
For now, I'll be happy with stable "unofficial" builds..

alteredlikeness said:
Actually, it looks like Hashcode and dhacker recently got the RAZR included in the "official" CM nightlies... http://wiki.cyanogenmod.org/w/Spyder_Info
So, if something stable enough is worked out for the A2 (i.e. kexec), then we could possibly see an "official" edison of some sort at some point... in theory.
For now, I'll be happy with stable "unofficial" builds..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is still not considered "official" cyanogen builds.....
If it is not listed here, then it is not 100% official:
http://get.cm
It is lets say.... an unofficial, "official" build, though. LOL

jimbridgman said:
That is still not considered "official" cyanogen builds.....
If it is not listed here, then it is not 100% official:
http://get.cm
It is lets say.... an unofficial, "official" build, though. LOL
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Um, Jim.. spyder and umts_spyder are both listed there
Still, I think Hashcode and dhacker have the status/connections to get it dubbed "official"..

alteredlikeness said:
Um, Jim.. spyder and umts_spyder are both listed there
Still, I think Hashcode and dhacker have the status/connections to get it dubbed "official"..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
so do I.... Don't forget who is on the cm coding team....
I did some looking internally at CM and found that these are semi-official, right now, with a big but, the kexec I am told is what is keeping it with the semi status...
They are looking into changing that for kexec based compiles, so.... Hopefully, that happens.

jimbridgman said:
It all surrounds around the kernel. Unlocked bootloader devices can run "custom" compiled kernels, and CM and the other "custom" non-stock based roms all have their own kernels too.
The reason that we can run "unofficial" versions is because your devs (me included), have to compile the ROM around the "stock" kernel, so that it can be installed right along side the stock kernel, and run without issue. All of the AOSPA, and PA, and such are the same exact way.
Anything that can be done on the Razr can pretty much be done on this phone. The thing is that your dev team is much smaller on the A2 as it was not a very popular device, so it takes longer if ever to get something since the devs make the choice to work on a specific ROM or not.
Also the "official" CM compiles are done by the cyanogen mod team themselves and they do all the coding and have an auto compile server to get the versions out to the public, so again it is up to the developers there to decide which phones they want to support. Again though if you look all the "official" build devices ALL have unlocked bootloaders in some form or fashion, so that the "custom" compiled kernel will install with out issue.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the reply. I wish I could also develop something for Atrix 2. But I am not familiar with the development. How is it done? and where do you test it and all other things? Is there some starting tutorial there for it? Or maybe some place from where you all guys started learning the developement?

androiddecoded said:
Thanks for the reply. I wish I could also develop something for Atrix 2. But I am not familiar with the development. How is it done? and where do you test it and all other things? Is there some starting tutorial there for it? Or maybe some place from where you all guys started learning the developement?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would start with my thread for all the tools you need.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1404442
Then you can start with taking a shot at a stock based ROM, since they really are the easiest place to start. You will need some form of linux ubuntu is really the most supported distro for android dev work, so that is a good start. This can be a VM to start out with, you can use a free VM tool like virtual box, if you want to just to give it a try, but I will tell you a dual boot works much better, and I will be honest I have a machine that just uses ubuntu and does not run windows at all. I have a wine install for things like netflix and such, but other than that.... no windows. That is just me though.
The key is the android kitchen... and that ONLY runs on linux, that where you build your ROM at. There are guys like rdavisct, who do it on windows, but even he would tell you how much of a PIA it was for him, and he did eventually go to ubuntu with my help.
After that you can start to look at compiling roms like CM, aospa, and the like.

jimbridgman said:
I would start with my thread for all the tools you need.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1404442
Then you can start with taking a shot at a stock based ROM, since they really are the easiest place to start. You will need some form of linux ubuntu is really the most supported distro for android dev work, so that is a good start. This can be a VM to start out with, you can use a free VM tool like virtual box, if you want to just to give it a try, but I will tell you a dual boot works much better, and I will be honest I have a machine that just uses ubuntu and does not run windows at all. I have a wine install for things like netflix and such, but other than that.... no windows. That is just me though.
The key is the android kitchen... and that ONLY runs on linux, that where you build your ROM at. There are guys like rdavisct, who do it on windows, but even he would tell you how much of a PIA it was for him, and he did eventually go to ubuntu with my help.
After that you can start to look at compiling roms like CM, aospa, and the like.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't want to be the antagonist here , but I did everything in Windows until I started my attempts at building from source.
Dsixda's kitchen works fine in Windows with Cygwin. I started off building pseudo-ROMs (or rebuilding the stock ROMs) with the kitchen, and then I eventually just used 7-zip and other tools and did it manually.
I currently use Ubuntu 12.04 64-bit in Virtual Box in Windows on my laptop to compile from source. But I did just install 12.10 fully on my old PC... 32-bit unfortunately.. I need to upgrade that comp, or find a work-around to build in 32-bit.. Anyhow, it runs much nicer than windows xp did.
Sent from my paranoid phone's mind

jimbridgman said:
I would start with my thread for all the tools you need.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1404442
Then you can start with taking a shot at a stock based ROM, since they really are the easiest place to start. You will need some form of linux ubuntu is really the most supported distro for android dev work, so that is a good start. This can be a VM to start out with, you can use a free VM tool like virtual box, if you want to just to give it a try, but I will tell you a dual boot works much better, and I will be honest I have a machine that just uses ubuntu and does not run windows at all. I have a wine install for things like netflix and such, but other than that.... no windows. That is just me though.
The key is the android kitchen... and that ONLY runs on linux, that where you build your ROM at. There are guys like rdavisct, who do it on windows, but even he would tell you how much of a PIA it was for him, and he did eventually go to ubuntu with my help.
After that you can start to look at compiling roms like CM, aospa, and the like.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thats awesome. I have both Red Hat and Ubuntu installed. What about the testing? After compiling do you test it directly on your Atrix 2? I have only one mobile and am afraid to test it directly on it. :crying:

androiddecoded said:
Thats awesome. I have both Red Hat and Ubuntu installed. What about the testing? After compiling do you test it directly on your Atrix 2? I have only one mobile and am afraid to test it directly on it. :crying:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, that is the only way. That is why you have the fxz and rsd lite handy and ready, just in case. 20 min. and you are back up and running. If you are concerned go buy a 10-40 buck "burner" at Walmart and put your sim in it, for while you test. I am lucky that I still have my HTC hero lying around for just that purpose... Every time I bricked my a2 (doing bootloader work), that was my go to backup.
I never needed it while doing ROM work, because the worst that will happen is boot loops/soft brick, it is nearly impossible to hard brick the a2 testing a ROM that does not have a kernel in it.

jimbridgman said:
Yes, that is the only way. That is why you have the fxz and rsd lite handy and ready, just in case. 20 min. and you are back up and running. If you are concerned go buy a 10-40 buck "burner" at Walmart and put your sim in it, for while you test. I am lucky that I still have my HTC hero lying around for just that purpose... Every time I bricked my a2 (doing bootloader work), that was my go to backup.
I never needed it while doing ROM work, because the worst that will happen is boot loops/soft brick, it is nearly impossible to hard brick the a2 testing a ROM that does not have a kernel in it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks sir. Got that
Will try to contribute something if I can. Kudos to our dev team. You guys are doing a great job. Happy to be a part of a great community

jimbridgman said:
Yes, that is the only way. That is why you have the fxz and rsd lite handy and ready, just in case. 20 min. and you are back up and running. If you are concerned go buy a 10-40 buck "burner" at Walmart and put your sim in it, for while you test. I am lucky that I still have my HTC hero lying around for just that purpose... Every time I bricked my a2 (doing bootloader work), that was my go to backup.
I never needed it while doing ROM work, because the worst that will happen is boot loops/soft brick, it is nearly impossible to hard brick the a2 testing a ROM that does not have a kernel in it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I took the Paranoid Android ROM from this page for practice. http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2050705
I extracted it using Android Kitchen, but it says boot.img not found. Do we need to add boot.img from our phone or its not needed since we have a locked bootlader. Or should I take stock Atrix 2 ROM?

androiddecoded said:
I took the Paranoid Android ROM from this page for practice. http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2050705
I extracted it using Android Kitchen, but it says boot.img not found. Do we need to add boot.img from our phone or its not needed since we have a locked bootlader. Or should I take stock Atrix 2 ROM?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ok, so you need to let the kitchen create or import a "fake" one, as the kitchen was originally made for like samsung and htc phones and they require one, so the kitchen needs one, it will remove it when it builds the ROM and creates the zip file.
Also make sure you have the edison file, that was listed and where to put it was also listed in my thread on ROM building for the A2. That will help you create a proper updater-script when it builds the ROM, as well as give the proper mapping for our partitions on the A2.

jimbridgman said:
Ok, so you need to let the kitchen create or import a "fake" one, as the kitchen was originally made for like samsung and htc phones and they require one, so the kitchen needs one, it will remove it when it builds the ROM and creates the zip file.
Also make sure you have the edison file, that was listed and where to put it was also listed in my thread on ROM building for the A2. That will help you create a proper updater-script when it builds the ROM, as well as give the proper mapping for our partitions on the A2.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I will do it tomorrow. Really thank you for assisting me.

jimbridgman said:
Ok, so you need to let the kitchen create or import a "fake" one, as the kitchen was originally made for like samsung and htc phones and they require one, so the kitchen needs one, it will remove it when it builds the ROM and creates the zip file.
Also make sure you have the edison file, that was listed and where to put it was also listed in my thread on ROM building for the A2. That will help you create a proper updater-script when it builds the ROM, as well as give the proper mapping for our partitions on the A2.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
One more doubt. I am building ROM from already built ROM i.e. the zip is already compiled, so how can I fix bugs like camera bugs and other things because they are already compiled i.e. in the form of apk.So should I use APK tool which is used to decompile the apk? Is there any difference while creating a ROM from source and creating it from already compiled zips.?? Silly question but I want to clear all these doubts
I downloaded the leaked 4.1 for Atrix 2. But I can't see the same folder format in that like system, META-INF? Why is that difference

androiddecoded said:
One more doubt. I am building ROM from already built ROM i.e. the zip is already compiled, so how can I fix bugs like camera bugs and other things because they are already compiled i.e. in the form of apk.So should I use APK tool which is used to decompile the apk? Is there any difference while creating a ROM from source and creating it from already compiled zips.?? Silly question but I want to clear all these doubts
I downloaded the leaked 4.1 for Atrix 2. But I can't see the same folder format in that like system, META-INF? Why is that difference
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The issues for the camera are NOT in the apk itself, they are in the vendor libraries, the issue is that when vendor libraries are introduced for certai n things the ROM does not boot.
The best bet until you get better at C code and compiling ROMS, I would not mess with that. You can however build a working CM10.1 with a working camera by using a camera apk from the market, like 360 camera, and there are a few others, you can just drop that into /system/app and build the ROM and it should work for you.
Once you complie CM there is not much you can fix like that, rdavisct and I were doing just that until Wang released his source for the required A2 files (we did find a lot of issues and fix them, but they were actual missing libs and similar back then., It really is a lost cause to use the zip to "fix" "real compiled in bugs, because anything you do like that will not have the needed pieces compiled around it, some libraries will not work right since others that are from CM were not compiled around the ones from the phone, and think that they are part of the CM code, and are not "includes" in the compile.
You can however do a lot of customizing to the ROM to fit YOUR needs, but do not expect to fix any issues this way. Like I mentioned the camera is an easy one, you then just go to settings tell it your "default" camera app is the 360 camera, not the stock CM one.

jimbridgman said:
The issues for the camera are NOT in the apk itself, they are in the vendor libraries, the issue is that when vendor libraries are introduced for certai n things the ROM does not boot.
The best bet until you get better at C code and compiling ROMS, I would not mess with that. You can however build a working CM10.1 with a working camera by using a camera apk from the market, like 360 camera, and there are a few others, you can just drop that into /system/app and build the ROM and it should work for you.
Once you complie CM there is not much you can fix like that, rdavisct and I were doing just that until Wang released his source for the required A2 files (we did find a lot of issues and fix them, but they were actual missing libs and similar back then., It really is a lost cause to use the zip to "fix" "real compiled in bugs, because anything you do like that will not have the needed pieces compiled around it, some libraries will not work right since others that are from CM were not compiled around the ones from the phone, and think that they are part of the CM code, and are not "includes" in the compile.
You can however do a lot of customizing to the ROM to fit YOUR needs, but do not expect to fix any issues this way. Like I mentioned the camera is an easy one, you then just go to settings tell it your "default" camera app is the 360 camera, not the stock CM one.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh, ok. So can I try removing Moto Homescreen app and setting Nova Launcher as default?
And why is the difference between files between Moto 4.1 leak and Paranoid Android ROM. The regular mapping of folder is not there like META-inf , /system etc..
EDIT: I think I got it. Leaked Moto 4.1 is fastboot file and PA is flashable zip. I think I am right. Can I get the zip for Moto 4.1 leak?

4.1 leak is not a flashable zip.
The meta-inf folder items are for zips that are flashed in recovery.
And, not to dissuade you from jumping in to modding/dev'ing, but you may want to take things a bit slower... Start small.. And read/research a lot.
Sent from my paranoid phone's mind

androiddecoded said:
Oh, ok. So can I try removing Moto Homescreen app and setting Nova Launcher as default?
And why is the difference between files between Moto 4.1 leak and Paranoid Android ROM. The regular mapping of folder is not there like META-inf , /system etc..
EDIT: I think I got it. Leaked Moto 4.1 is fastboot file and PA is flashable zip. I think I am right. Can I get the zip for Moto 4.1 leak?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, there is not a flashable "zip" for the Moto 4.1 leak, you will have to build that on your own with the Rom kitchen, since it is an FXZ, it will not have those flashable parts. The kitchen is very easy to use, it is menu driven and only takes about 30 min to an hour to do what it seems you want to do.
You can replace the launcher from within a flashable zip, but you might have issues, because the MOTO blur junk that is in their ROMS DEPENDS on it, if you do NOT leave it (moto blur launcher) in /system, then a number of things will not work that depend on the moto launcher (they are embedded in the xml files in the apks, and need to be edited to NOT look for the moto laucher), I think it is more trouble than it is worth, personally.
I would throw Apex in there if that is what you want, and then on first boot select it as your default launcher and be done with it, less issues and mess, other than the old moto launcher taking space in /system. BY the way ANYTHING that you put in /system is not really 100% upgrade-able by the market app, so like lets say you put apex in /system, then the market can not update the version in /system, since it is read only, and it will either fail the update, or try to put the newer updated files /data, so you will have things in two places for your 3rd party launcher. It is MUCH better to put any APKS that would come from the market into /data so they can get updates with out any odd issues, just a heads up...
--EDIT--
As alteredlikeness said about the same time I was posting, start a little smaller, and do a bunch of learning, because from what I see you asking about and posting in here, you have a good bit of learning to do, about how the directory structure and things are and work in android, as well as some ROM building basics.

TWRP 2.7 for HTC Desire S

Hi. As you propably know, there is no TWRP 2.7 for saga. This is why:
Saga would need a number of updates in order to make it work with 4.4 Kit Kat ROMs. 4.4 ROM support really doesn't depend on the recovery itself. The kernel and other parts of the ramdisk have to support SELinux contexts in order for the set_metadata functions to work. I don't have a saga myself and at this point I have no plans to continue to support the device. I've been building saga in a CM7 / gingerbread tree which doesn't support the things needed for SELinux. The device would need to be compiled with an updated kernel in at least a 4.1 and preferably a 4.3 or 4.4 tree to support installing Kit Kat ROMs.
I plan to drop official support for any device that I've been building in ICS or Gingerbread trees which includes saga. If people want to see continued support for those devices, then hopefully developers for those devices will step up and build TWRP themselves and maybe offer their updated device files to us so that we can extend official support.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So basically we need developers who would like to help with that. I'm not that techy to understand what the problem is but I would like you to tell me and help.
BTW! Why our device is not available in DevDB! How do we change that?

Hm. I might take a shot at this. Though I personally prefer 4ext

devil-kin said:
Hm. I might take a shot at this. Though I personally prefer 4ext
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It would be really splendid thing to do sir

Got it to build, just not to boot. I guess a black screen is no use to anyone
Will fiddle some more with it.

devil-kin said:
Got it to build, just not to boot. I guess a black screen is no use to anyone
Will fiddle some more with it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's great! It would be even better if you could somehow share some of your work here so maybe someone else could take a look (i don't know if it's possible. But you use github right?) I would love to add this project to DevDB but it seems that our phone is not there and i don't know how to add it.

My github repos are at https://github.com/jdeluyck - I haven't uploaded anything yet save for the changes to the repo file to pull in TWRP.

Here ya go, first build of TWRP 2.7.0.0 for Desire S, which seems to work
Please test and let me know

PERFECT!
devil-kin said:
Here ya go, first build of TWRP 2.7.0.0 for Desire S, which seems to work
Please test and let me know
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I flashed it, I backed up my rom, I wiped, I flashed my rom clean, it booted, I went to recovery and I restored my rom. Everything went perfect, no problems whatsoever! Now there are 2 questions left to ask.
1. May I update TWRP for saga developement thread and attach this build?
2. Would you be willing to offer updated device files to TWRP team? From my observation most people download TWRP drom official website and it would be great if 2.7 would make an appearance there.
Anyway great work devil-kin :highfive: Personally I see TWRP as the best recovery and I'm on it from 2.2. Seeing it still working in its latest iteration on my beloved DS makes little tears appear in the corners of my eyes. I absolutely love this phone for it's size, specs, build quality and weird survability (many screen to sidewalk encounters and no broken glass Only praiseworthy scars). LONG LIVE DS! <3

VnnAmed said:
1. May I update TWRP for saga developement thread and attach this build?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sure. I'm even willing to offer up new updates as long as I got a working CM tree to base it off.
VnnAmed said:
2. Would you be willing to offer updated device files to TWRP team? From my observation most people download TWRP drom official website and it would be great if 2.7 would make an appearance there.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sure - the device files can be found at https://github.com/jdeluyck/android_device_htc_saga
Do I have to send them to anyone specific?

devil-kin said:
Sure. I'm even willing to offer up new updates as long as I got a working CM tree to base it off.
Sure - the device files can be found at https://github.com/jdeluyck/android_device_htc_saga
Do I have to send them to anyone specific?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you very much If you could, i would like you to PM Dees_Troy and tell him that you have succesfully compiled 2.7 for saga, so if he has some more technical questions you can answer them I'm updating TWRP for saga thread right away

Nvidia Shield Tablet Kernel

Moved the kernel to its own thread
https://forum.xda-developers.com/shield-tablet/development/oc-k1-nougat-t3996325

I suggest android file host...

Can't wait for the kernel to come out!

Hazel nut said:
Can't wait for the kernel to come out!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
its pretty much done, im just trying to squeeze more speed out of it.. also the tap to wake seems to only work when it wants.. i loose access to rear camera, but my sons works fine, not that i use it for taking pictures lol, ill upload a v1 for people linked to my dropbox as i dont know how to upload here yet..:good:

v1.0
v1.0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/k0d1wjrxxki8p8f/Bleeblun OC K1.zip?dl=1[/QUOTE]

Bleeblun said:
v1.0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/k0d1wjrxxki8p8f/Bleeblun OC K1.zip?dl=1
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you need to check XDA rules before uploading kernels. I think XDA require that kernel sources must be available.
Anyway I'm sure you can check out the forum guidelines for submitting kernels.
Happy compiling.
Sent from my Nvidia Shield Tablet using XDA Labs

jemail said:
I think you need to check XDA rules before uploading kernels. I think XDA require that kernel sources must be available.
Anyway I'm sure you can check out the forum guidelines for submitting kernels.
Happy compiling.
That’s why I asked, but no one seems interested in responding or helping in any way.. I know people have uploaded guides, but they aren’t easy to follow or even close to how to do it.. I asked how to do it - 600 people read it and not one person responded ?*
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

Well you can't expect all 600 people to be devs ?
Read the xda forum rules and you will find that you need to have some number of posts (10 I think??) before you can make a rom/kernel/development thread (afaik, might be wrong). For uploading, afh is prefered, and uploading source code is probably a must.
Thanks for your effort never the less!
Edit: typo

Nah, I didn’t expect 600 devs, but someone to point me in the right direction maybe.. for being self taught and copying/modifying bits of wolfies code into bitobs codes - how can I point them to the source? would I need to upload my modified source to github?
Also as for making 10 posts - do I just post random junk to get my count up? ?* It just seems a bit crap to me, I should just make a post explaining how to do it..

I don't know honestly, I would guess you need to upload the modified code (so probably the thing you compile into the flashable image) to github yes, with all the polite thanks and props to bitO and werewolf.
As for the post count, again, I told you I'm not sure about it (or anything I said really, because I myself am not a dev), so spend an hour or two reading xda rules, there has to be something that answers your problems or we would have steel01 and every other dev asking the same things...

V2-oc-k1 shield tablet
V2 - faster and smoother
Shield tablet OC-K1
More file system supports
Slightly undervolted to help temperatures
Probably a lot more but can't remember..
https://www.dropbox.com/s/7bd72jvzijmosh4/Bleeblun OC K1 v2.zip?dl=1

V2 - faster and smoother
Done a post for it somewhere but here's a link
https://www.dropbox.com/s/7bd72jvzijmosh4/Bleeblun OC K1 v2.zip?dl=1

Is this kernel for stock or Lineage? On Lineage v2 doesn't boot.

It’s for stock nougat

Could you cook something for lineage 15.1?

it’s should be easy enough to do, just I’d have nothing to test it on, as I’m not swapping to lineage

Leave that up to me, no problem. If you could I would thank you.

Hi, thanks for the kernel (just found it). Did you enable multirom as I'm currently using Stock and Lineage ?

jpearn said:
Hi, thanks for the kernel (just found it). Did you enable multirom as I'm currently using Stock and Lineage ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
is multirom all i need to enable? ill search for it in the menuconfig as youre not the only one asking for lineage.. whats the benefit of lineage anyway? as i dont see the point of loosing nvidia experience games. A free gaming pc, why would i loose that..

Disrupthor said:
Could you cook something for lineage 15.1?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
theres another guy asking for lineage, whats the benefit, also he has pointed me in a direction to enable it for lineage, so ill give it a search. however you guys will have to let me know if it works as i dont want to loose nvidia experience

Custom Roms (Lineage etc)

Ahoi,
the guys from f(x)tec said they would send out some devices to developers of custom roms including lineage to help development of the rom. Did this already happen? Do lineage devs have the phone and did they start porting? Just curious if that happens at all. I'm hoping to put lineage on mine asap.

There are few developers who are making Lineage OS and Sailfish OS for Pro1. Chen showed some alpha build on Twitter previously. Also, devs has the source code since last month.
https://mobile.twitter.com/chenliangchen/status/1148357734204616704
https://mobile.twitter.com/tdmcode/status/1180553338389028865
http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p=1560008&postcount=2235
chen said:
What I can confirm is that there are 2 senior developers has been working on Lineage OS since a while ago. And they've made some great progress. (All the credit goes to them)
They are awaiting for the official release and can move the porting project into the next stage I believe.
That's as far as I know, and again, it's a great work of Lineage community.
PS: When I tried to flash SFOS initial release onto Pro1 I need to flash a custom TWRP, which is I believe also from Lineage OS devs.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

https://github.com/tdm?tab=repositories
With the email today confirming those who are in the first batch, we're getting close! What I think would be really nice would be working TWRP so can make stock backup on day zero. And of course for root, los, or sfos...

enigma9o7 said:
https://github.com/tdm?tab=repositories
With the email today confirming those who are in the first batch, we're getting close! What I think would be really nice would be working TWRP so can make stock backup on day zero. And of course for root, los, or sfos...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As a member of the proto guys, I can assure you that the fastboot images will get released quickly. We have the shipping firmware, maybe there'll be simply a website for that. A working TWRP exists, but keep in mind system-as-root limitations.

j1505243 said:
A working TWRP exists, but keep in mind system-as-root limitations.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Does backup work now? I'd heard the earliest port worked for flash but not backup.
Any chance you can share? I expect my phone any day now...

enigma9o7 said:
Does backup work now? I'd heard the earliest port worked for flash but not backup.
Any chance you can share? I expect my phone any day now...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Backups require decryption support, but since it's a stock msm8998 platform you can expect that rather quickly. Sharing is what I'll leave to the original creators, we're informed about the shipment progress.

j1505243 said:
keep in mind system-as-root limitations.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Don't suppose you have a link that could explain this to people who have no idea what you mean?
I think this has something to do with the fact that even as root in Android if you modify stuff in /system it doesn't stick after reboot. But I'm really only guessing and haven't bothered to read up on it yet.

enigma9o7 said:
Don't suppose you have a link that could explain this to people who have no idea what you mean?
I think this has something to do with the fact that even as root in Android if you modify stuff in /system it doesn't stick after reboot. But I'm really only guessing and haven't bothered to read up on it yet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
System-as-root means that /system is mounted as /, but it also means that recovery is a part of boot image, so flashing it as the whole boot partition won't let you boot the system. There'll be a need for TWRP installer script.

enigma9o7 said:
Don't suppose you have a link that could explain this to people who have no idea what you mean?
I think this has something to do with the fact that even as root in Android if you modify stuff in /system it doesn't stick after reboot. But I'm really only guessing and haven't bothered to read up on it yet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
https://source.android.com/devices/bootloader/system-as-root

https://twitter.com/tdmcode/status/1197945254906777600

Test builds are available:
- http://files.nwwn.com/android/pro1/lineage.html

Initial impressions?
Flash-A-Holic said:
Test builds are available
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for posting this. I've been unable to find any impressions as to the stability of these ROMs. Yes, they are testing roms, but IME there are testing roms and then there are testing roms.
Are these the former (unsupported but mostly stable) or the latter (you don't want any of your real data on it, will crash at random times and missing core functionality)?

maplesteel said:
Thanks for posting this. I've been unable to find any impressions as to the stability of these ROMs. Yes, they are testing roms, but IME there are testing roms and then there are testing roms.
Are these the former (unsupported but mostly stable) or the latter (you don't want any of your real data on it, will crash at random times and missing core functionality)?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's been stable for some time now. I'll be posting a thread here in the next day or two and making lineage official in the next week or two.

tdm said:
It's been stable for some time now. I'll be posting a thread here in the next day or two and making lineage official in the next week or two.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Great to hear it TDM.
Cannot give you enough kudos after lurking in the lineageOS test forum thread and seeing all the work you have been doing.
I may even give AOKP a try once you've had a chance to look at it. Lineage is great but it's been years since the Halcyon days of having _multiple_ viable on-stock Androids!