1. GPL-Violation
i think that movikun is right. I do not have rights to give my binary to anyone before I would post my sources.
and I am not sure if I have rights to determine the time I post my sources too.
see movikun's reply here: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=6047882&postcount=2
so I decide to stop posting anything temporarily. thank you movikun, you teach me a lesson.
there are many devices running a .29 kernel now, they are all formal/official distributions but their sources have not open yet.
and after HTC release their .29 binary for 32A and HERO, if they don't release the sources immediately and you think it violate the GPL, please kick their ass. you will get what you want from there.
2. what I had done.
I did little things as someone said. that's TRUE. the most time I spent, were just looking into the sources, and try to understand everything. if one get enough understandings, there are not many things to do.
we have a working kernel, proper device specified files and configurations, you can find them all in msm-kernel .29/.32 and htc-kernel .27. everyone could make same changes what I did, if he have proper skills.
I had not took a look at others works, it's unnecessary and it may have noise with other's tweaks. so it doesn't make sense that I must post my sources just because they had posted theirs.
in fact, in a programmer's view, I never think these works are much valuable.
3 why I don't release my sources.
a) I know we won't get any contribution except different binary version if I would posted my patches at current. these binaries just make things more complicated.
though you can't get my sources, but if you take a look at android/HAL sources on Google's repo and Qualcomm's site, you will find something valuable about problems we faced.
but no one except me works on that. I don't believe in some people who named everything they can name. I won't work with them, or let them get my works so easily, unless they would have made some real contribution for our community.
b) after months I had posted my kernel, yongzi posted his patch. but how many people care about his work? everyone just remember something like XXkernel. what are these XXkernels?
I don't like that. I am not someone like yongzi. it's a game for me: I want to see if I do not post my patches, could these people get things done by themselves? I have shown what could be done at least, now it's our heroes's turn. they won't have any excuse to make their great named kernel staying with old radio anymore.
I am not aiming at users and ROM devs, I am talking about someone made their brand on a kernel they mashed up. if they named it as XXkernels, they should provide something special, but not a normal kernel with others patches.
even Ubuntu won't name the kernel they used as "UbuntuKernel", though they did much more. but it happened in our community. yes GPL don't prevent that, but I don't want these named kernels to include my work.
c) when I had posted the kernel binary, GPS could not work in some ROM. some people just said that the bug is in the kernel, and they didn't have the kernel sources.
now, we all get GPS working by replacing a different libgps.so, with same kernel binary.
how can you expect me to work with these people? they even don't want to understand anything, just try to mash things up and name it. if it doesn't work, all faults belong to others. and if you ask them something they have known, they never response. yes, they obeyed the GPL with their "release".
you could think they are good. but personally, I won't encourage their behaviors. the only way I can choose, just refuse to share my sources. if I have other choices, I won't be so disagreeable.
--------------
the .32 kernel is deleted temporary.
First off, let me commend you for coming clean, and at least trying to explain yourself, and not just getting angry and slurring those criticising. Thank you.
However, you seriously misunderstand the GPL. It is NOT up to you to decide if the license applies to you or not, dependent on how many changes you made. Normally i would just link to the license and scream "rtfl!", but I do NOT want this to turn into a flamewar. However, before i begin let me be clear, i am ONLY talking about the linux kernel. The rest of android is licensed under MIT, and sense bit are propietary. And it's only the Linux kernel i'm concerned about. So, let's go:
- You get the source from google/htc/motorolla/someone else. It is licensed under to you under the GPL. Which means you must abide by it, or not use the code.
- You modify it for you personal needs. This is permitted, and encouraged. You do not need to distribute anything, since it's only for you personal use.
- You've decided you want to pass along the binaries to your friend, with your changes. AT THIS VERY MOMENT you MUST give him the source code, and this is NOT NEGOTIABLE. He has every right to get the source code, just as you did when you got the source code from google, and thats because you made changes to GPL code. GPL is viral and it was deisgined SPECIFICALLY to do JUST THAT.
Also, another error that you make, is that you think that you can make a non-gpl release. Such a thing doesn't exist. You cannot change the license of GPL code. Once code is GPL, it STAYS GPL.
And yes, HTC was VERY late on numerous occasions with it's sources. We know that. However, that's not an excuse. Do you kill people just because there are murders on the world? Of course not, because they're wrong. GPL-Violations is already informed and working on getting the 32A 1.2 sources, and if it comes to that, they'll work on that too. However, that does NOT give you the right to whithold your sources.
To summarize : either you don't release the sources to the kernel, admit you're breaking the GPL, stop distributing your 2.6.29 and 2.6.32, or you put up a tarball/github somewhere, and the community will gladly accept it. The choice is yours.
P.S. This has made me, and a couple of other close devs feel extremely distastefull. The Magic scene is loosing developers to the N1 extremely fast, and it's just sad that we have to fight each other to play by the rules.
#teamdouche
sanpei, we all know what its like to work for this community. You release something and people blame you for any little bug and also never give you credit.
Despite this, I really hope you decide to post your sources, it would great to have and there are lots of people who could do great work with it. The point of this community to work together and not withhold your work because you want to be the only one with it.
Honestly, I just want to ask where did you get the information needed to create the AMSS 6355 patch or where did you obtain that code?
bcrook said:
sanpei, we all know what its like to work for this community. You release something and people blame you for any little bug and also never give you credit.
Despite this, I really hope you decide to post your sources, it would great to have and there are lots of people who could do great work with it. The point of this community to work together and not withhold your work because you want to be the only one with it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just as an outsider who lurks but really does not post anything usefull. I find the majority of the posters are very thankful on this forum. The problem is, for every 15 thank you's the one flame will be heard more than all the gratitude.
I think you should just ignore the detractors and focus on the thankful people. Pissy people will always make a bigger fuss than a happy one, yet the happy ones are the ones you need to keep happy. The unhappy ones can go to hell.
movikun said:
First off, let me commend you for coming clean, and at least trying to explain yourself, and not just getting angry and slurring those criticising. Thank you.
However, you seriously misunderstand the GPL. It is NOT up to you to decide if the license applies to you or not, dependent on how many changes you made. Normally i would just link to the license and scream "rtfl!", but I do NOT want this to turn into a flamewar. However, before i begin let me be clear, i am ONLY talking about the linux kernel. The rest of android is licensed under MIT, and sense bit are propietary. And it's only the Linux kernel i'm concerned about. So, let's go:
- You get the source from google/htc/motorolla/someone else. It is licensed under to you under the GPL. Which means you must abide by it, or not use the code.
- You modify it for you personal needs. This is permitted, and encouraged. You do not need to distribute anything, since it's only for you personal use.
- You've decided you want to pass along the binaries to your friend, with your changes. AT THIS VERY MOMENT you MUST give him the source code, and this is NOT NEGOTIABLE. He has every right to get the source code, just as you did when you got the source code from google, and thats because you made changes to GPL code. GPL is viral and it was deisgined SPECIFICALLY to do JUST THAT.
Also, another error that you make, is that you think that you can make a non-gpl release. Such a thing doesn't exist. You cannot change the license of GPL code. Once code is GPL, it STAYS GPL.
And yes, HTC was VERY late on numerous occasions with it's sources. We know that. However, that's not an excuse. Do you kill people just because there are murders on the world? Of course not, because they're wrong. GPL-Violations is already informed and working on getting the 32A 1.2 sources, and if it comes to that, they'll work on that too. However, that does NOT give you the right to whithold your sources.
To summarize : either you don't release the sources to the kernel, admit you're breaking the GPL, stop distributing your 2.6.29 and 2.6.32, or you put up a tarball/github somewhere, and the community will gladly accept it. The choice is yours.
P.S. This has made me, and a couple of other close devs feel extremely distastefull. The Magic scene is loosing developers to the N1 extremely fast, and it's just sad that we have to fight each other to play by the rules.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you are right. thank you for this lesson
for discussions:
I think I have a workaround on this: if I claim a organization, and our members can get my binary, and this organization never distribute anything to the world out of it. then it will not violate the GPL.
wesgarner said:
Honestly, I just want to ask where did you get the information needed to create the AMSS 6355 patch or where did you obtain that code?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you already have all things as I have.
in fact, I think you could make the patch in 1 or 2 days if you would think about how things work seriously.
sanpei said:
I think you are right. thank you for this lesson
for discussions:
I think I have a workaround on this: if I claim a organization, and our members can get my binary, and this organization never distribute anything to the world out of it. then it will not violate the GPL.
you already have all things as I have.
in fact, I think you could make the patch in 1 or 2 days if you would think about how things work seriously.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i have your binary and everyone on xda has it
we want the source for it and you refuse
you are a good coder im sure but you dont share the OSS spirit many of us do obviously - we just want everyone to share the code and give credit where credit is due
do you see people ripping off cyanogen for his kernel? they modify and give credit to cyanogen and this is the SPIRIT of the GPL (thanks for your work bcrook on cm kernel)
same with wes - thanks for all your work too wes - hopefully we can get NR kernel over from you soon - love your old radio version that was compiled
your above comment proves you just use FOSS and dont abide by the rules
dont release anything in the future if u dont have sources
thanks
edit: looking at your OP i dont believe you grasp OSS and the liscense
to release anything to the public can be done w/o source
the liscense states that if someone requests the source you must provide it (lots of request for your source)
HTC COMPLIES BECAUSE IF ASKED THEY WILL RELEASE
second to ahkmsk - i looked at your thread and honestly if you dont want to develop for a device you dont have then DONT
your roms are always half cooked and rarely updated / fixed - personally the only DAILY rom you released was your superD port (daily meaning i can use it on a daily basis and not be hampered by bugs or lost functionality)
maybe you should wait to own a device before you develop so you are motivated to release fully functioning roms and not half baked sense roms based on dumps
you guys are the queens of drama...
sanpei said:
I think you are right. thank you for this lesson
for discussions:
I think I have a workaround on this: if I claim a organization, and our members can get my binary, and this organization never distribute anything to the world out of it. then it will not violate the GPL.
you already have all things as I have.
in fact, I think you could make the patch in 1 or 2 days if you would think about how things work seriously.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Or as the beauty of the dev community, share
Of course I always give credit where credit is due - you wouldn't be disincluded
I have all of the code and have cleaned it up nicely only one bug left in it for audio - if you would like you could look at the commits and see if u see my (probable) typo
bcrook said:
sanpei, we all know what its like to work for this community. You release something and people blame you for any little bug and also never give you credit.
Despite this, I really hope you decide to post your sources, it would great to have and there are lots of people who could do great work with it. The point of this community to work together and not withhold your work because you want to be the only one with it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I never said I won't release the sources forever. I just feel uncomfortable many people did things in such a way.
so if they have troubles, I don't want this trouble to be resolved by me.
and not to put too fine a point on it, I find that there not so many people who could do some serious work with the kernel, if they just wait for someone to provide the correct patches.
they should try to understand what they MUST understand. after this, we would believe that they could do something valuable, but not just name things already exists.
alan090 said:
...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
wesgarner said:
...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
my request is very simple:
create a real project which belongs to community only, do not call it with any uncommon name.
I don't think that cm-kernel, WGKernel, or sanpei kernel do really exist. all of these are just normal linux kernel, with some public patches and little changes.
we should not name the kernel binary we release to users too. because what we did just too trivial to mention if we compare these works with real kernel development. and some option tweaks are absolute nothing.
(you could name the ROM releases)
and we should promise that we will work in this project in the future, and we won't make a named kernel again, unless you rewrite more than 1/10 codes of the kernel and make it real different from a common kernel.
then, I will work with you guys together, you will find that I am not so idiotic as you may think now.
sanpei said:
you already have all things as I have.
in fact, I think you could make the patch in 1 or 2 days if you think about how things work seriously.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh for god's sake, if you know the solution, why don't you just TELL us what to do?? Or better yet, produce a kernel patch? Stop playing this annoying "I know something you don't, tee-hee, figure it out yourself!" game of yours.
I don't have much against you personally and I didn't want to get involved in this at all, because I really didn't give that much to Android community myself in the first place (and it's not because I wouldn't want to), but this selfish attitude of yours is annoying the hell out of me really (to put it mildly). What good is it to know something and sit on it selfishly for months instead of sharing it so others can benefit from it? And why not in exchange let others help YOU figure out the things you seem to struggle with, whenever it is because you're busy or simply because you don't know the solution, which happens to any of us sometimes, even the brightest? Isn't that the whole point of joining a community in the first place?
If everyone in the Android community was following your example, there would most likely be no community at all by now. There would just be a bunch of people like Cyanogen or Wes posting about what great things have they done with their phones that they won't allow others to reuse. What a community feeliing...
If you don't want to release something, don't, that's fine by me, I don't care that much as others do about you following GPL or not (although I really should, it exists for a reason), but if you decide so, then please also stop boasting to others about all those awesome things you have and won't give them. It doesn't make you look wise, it just makes you look like a wiseass.
You're also saying you don't like that people are splicing ROMs together with bits and pieces of other ROMs, yet instead of setting an example on how to do it right all you do is give people your kernel binary (and I mean the .29 in your ROMs, not just the .32 you've shared here earlier today) instead of kernel source. What good is the kernel binary if people can't modify it and/or compile it themselves as they should? If someone wants to make a ROM for 32A new radio, they pretty much have to do exactly what you dislike - splice your kernel binary with some other ROM and hope for the best. The effect is that you've been deliberately slowing the 32A community's progress for months now, because of...of what, exactly? Fame? The feeling of uniqueness? The community is already weakening as the many are moving to N1, why the hell would you want to weaken it even more and intentionally by denying others access to what you have available? What's the point? Unless you really don't have the sources as some people are implying, but then, why don't simply confess and be done with it with style?
I really don't get this at all.
On a separate but related note, if devs in general don't like the hacks among us (such as myself ) cooking ROMs by taking bits and pieces from everyone and splicing them together, then please let us know. I don't want to post the little I have done if it will upset the majority of devs.
Unfortunately as Case just stated, I personally have felt the need to try (as lame as my efforts may seem to the far more knowledgeable devs) to put ROMs together for the 32a Magic community and myself even if they have some bugs. We just don't have any other option at this point if we want to go with the new radio.
The majority of posters seem to always give credit where it is deserved when taking from devs.
sanpei said:
my request is very simple:
create a real project which belongs to community only, do not call it with any uncommon name.
I don't think that cm-kernel, WGKernel, or sanpei kernel does really exist. all of these are just normal linux kernel, with some public patches and little changes.
we should not name the kernel binary we release to users too. because what we did just too trivial to mention if we compare these works with real kernel development.
(you could name the ROM releases)
and we should promise that we will work in this project in the future, and we won't make a named kernel again, except you rewrite more than 1/10 codes of kernel at least.
then, I will work with you guys together. you will find that I am not so idiotic as you think now.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think your an idiot sanpei
I just think we all have a little ways to go here
If you are willing to work on a community kernel with WG im sure all the people involved in porting/rom building will be happy to make you proud of your work
sure people like bcrook and others would be happy to contribute as well
what we just want is you to work with us - not for us
i know i will be happy to work with a new kernel on porting
i will also look into rom cooking more and work with other members to release awesome roms based on 32a community kernel
we just want to work together right
Case_ said:
...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
giant_rider said:
...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have already said that I am NOT aiming at ROM devs. the ROM is full filled with your personal styles. that's why people love your ROM. and do you think the kernel works is more difficult or valuable than what you did? absolutely NO.
I am just talking about the kernel. every named kernels are nothing different essentially. they are all one thing and they all have same patches. would you copy Cyanogen's ROM, just install/remove some apps, and name it as yours?
and I don't feel I am wise, uniqueness or somewhat, I just want to struggle with these behaviors. so I refuse to share my work with any named kernel.
the only way to prevent them from getting my patches, just do not post the sources until they are really work together, at a common project as things should go.
Case_ said:
...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
and if all of you think what I did just slowing your progress, OK , I will QUIT. anyway, all of you will get HTC's kernel in next months.
and may I remind you, before I had posted the binary, most people had thought that it's impossible to let msm-kernel work with new radio. at least, they know it could work now. make your efforts, it's not so late.
btw, there are not any spiritual needs what I could get from these works, except the understandings on how these devices work. I have more important things in my life. I just did things on my way. that's all.
you are right on one thing. I shouldn't talk about all these bull-****. if I just had taken the binary from others who you don't know and they couldn't release their sources for some reasons, all of you will be satisfied.
so everybody here, I am just a LIAR . what you have got is STOLEN by me from somewhere. what I said above just my EXCUSEs. the fact is: I DO NOT have the sources
to me it's simple
your feelings could be understood
but once you release the binary to the public
you have to release the source code according to GPL
you may want to define the word 'public'
but you never want to redefine GPL license
that's it
alan090 said:
I don't think your an idiot sanpei
I just think we all have a little ways to go here
If you are willing to work on a community kernel with WG im sure all the people involved in porting/rom building will be happy to make you proud of your work
sure people like bcrook and others would be happy to contribute as well
what we just want is you to work with us - not for us
i know i will be happy to work with a new kernel on porting
i will also look into rom cooking more and work with other members to release awesome roms based on 32a community kernel
we just want to work together right
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
first, thank you for your kind words.
and I hope that other developers could make the patches soon, then I don't need to steal something from somewhere anymore.
you may not get the patches from me, because I am not sure if I can steal sources.
sanpei said:
my request is very simple:
create a real project which belongs to community only, do not call it with any uncommon name.
I don't think that cm-kernel, WGKernel, or sanpei kernel do really exist. all of these are just normal linux kernel, with some public patches and little changes.
we should not name the kernel binary we release to users too. because what we did just too trivial to mention if we compare these works with real kernel development. and some option tweaks are absolute nothing.
(you could name the ROM releases)
and we should promise that we will work in this project in the future, and we won't make a named kernel again, unless you rewrite more than 1/10 codes of the kernel and make it real different from a common kernel.
then, I will work with you guys together, you will find that I am not so idiotic as you may think now.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hey Sanpei,
First of all I wanted to say thanks for the work you have done for 32a! I really appreciate it - it is something that I cannot do and have no knowledge of!
Secondly, I can understand the issue you have with the naming of the Kernel given that its more just tweaks to the linux kernel that is being done and not a whole new Kernel re-write. However, I think it is still necessary to give it some sort of a name for version tracking and to make sure that people know which version of the Kernel is being discussed / used.
So how about this: For the Kernel that you and others collectively work on for the community why don't we give it a generic name that is not specific to any one developer? We could call it "XDA32a Kernel" or something, that way we can track changes to our community Kernel and if something goes wrong or if there are bugs, people don't point the finger at any one developer/coder.
What do you think?
novat said:
Hey Sanpei,
First of all I wanted to say thanks for the work you have done for 32a! I really appreciate it - it is something that I cannot do and have no knowledge of!
Secondly, I can understand the issue you have with the naming of the Kernel given that its more just tweaks to the linux kernel that is being done and not a whole new Kernel re-write. However, I think it is still necessary to give it some sort of a name for version tracking and to make sure that people know which version of the Kernel is being discussed / used.
So how about this: For the Kernel that you and others collectively work on for the community why don't we give it a generic name that is not specific to any one developer? We could call it "XDA32a Kernel" or something, that way we can track changes to our community Kernel and if something goes wrong or if there are bugs, people don't point the finger at any one developer/coder.
What do you think?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree with a generic name.
every binary release should provide correct commit code. they will give all the information we need in a build.
but you should talk to other developers. I just a thief and I can't get sources
Awesome Well I can't code or anything but I am a software tester by profession, and so I have some idea of project management... Maybe I could help get our 32a devs together to work on a joint kernel project?
Who would you suggest I contact to try to get together on a kernel dev team? Yourself, wez, cursor, any others?
I haven't found the answer, and I was actually just curious as to what the hurdles are switching the bootloader in the rom is?
Being that I am on the JB BL, I am stuck with mainly two roms, Clean and Hydro. Both great roms, but was just curious from a dev standpoint, since we have both the ICS and JB bootloaders floating around out there, what hurdles are in place keeping a JB BL version of AOSP being made.
Thanks!
Mario
+1 I would like to know also. I keep seeing don't do it you will brick but can't find any information about what happened or when. Yes I have searched! I may not be able to recover from a problem that you just breeze through as we are all different. The subject deserves further study.
I can place Asus ICS update on my sdcard and get an offer to downgrade just as I got offers to upgrade.
Maybe someone can provide links or definite info about this situation.
there are some devs trying to get this working, but it seems to be very hard to get it running
mikaole said:
there are some devs trying to get this working, but it seems to be very hard to get it running
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe someone will start a thread to collect and share info about this problem.
tobdaryl said:
Maybe someone will start a thread to collect and share info about this problem.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, the devs should work on this problem and trying to fix it not discuss why its not running.
As far as I know it has something to do with the new Kernel.
mikaole said:
No, the devs should work on this problem and trying to fix it not discuss why its not running.
As far as I know it has something to do with the new Kernel.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was speaking of the devs starting and maintaining the thread.
I have seen one post here (FT300) asking for testers NVFlash but it is common in other threads.
The more heads involved the better the chances of conquering the problem.
Take the nook tablet!
Bauwks broke open the locked bootloader problem, you never see him post but he is there and knows his stuff.
AdamOutler seldom posts but he broke booting from the sdcard.
Numerous threads were provided a key piece of the puzzle by people who seldom post and are not listed here as developers.
These things have a better chance of coming to pass with more people involved and that is the reason for a sharing thread.
Obviously the thread has to be highly regulated as to what can and can't be posted for it to be effective.
There are good devs in this forum also and I'm sure they are working on the problem and I take nothing away from them or their contributions, but maybe there are people in the wings who could also help (not me).
I will be a tester as needed but don't have current knowledge base to work with. Like others here I am trying to learn by studying and following examples of others.:good:
mikaole said:
No, the devs should work on this problem and trying to fix it not discuss why its not running.
As far as I know it has something to do with the new Kernel.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can see both +'s and -'s to this. Myself, I have both Engineering and Computer Science degrees and quite an extensive amount of programming experience, but I have never worked on the Android platform. Any and all information pertaining to the reasons or methodologies behind why something isn't working is all food for thought for someone like me and might be a trigger to motivate a breakthrough. Being in the dark in most cases doesn't move anything forward, and I think there is an old saying that really applies here... "Why recreate the wheel."
I know a lot of programmers think "Do it yourself and learn", but at the same time, we are all trying to work to the same goal, getting the best user experience we can. With that said, if every single person had to start off at point 0, it would take an infinitely longer amount of time to get to where we could be. If we all shared ideas, and in some simple form or another, had a collection of proofs that have worked, then it would allow anyone with minimal android programming experience a way to start somewhere beyond point 0, and get up and helping as quickly as possible.
For those who simply want to sit back and complain about something not working but have no interest nor will to contribute, this may be the issue we are experiencing with programmers who just have no interest in hearing people whine and fill up their threads.
Just my 2c.
Mario
Anyone have any links to people who actually bricked trying to go back to JB from ICS? I have searched and searched without any positive results. I only get don't do it, it will brick your device.
I am starting up a new site and I would really like to see what people opinions are of it.
I have been talking to a few developers and users on here about it and there seems to be some interest.
It basically organizes Recent Rom releases from XDA by Make, Model, Dev, OS, etc. I feel like it would be a quicker way for users to see whats new with there phones.
It still uses the Developers links, info, images, Donation code, links back to XDA threads ,etc.
I am willing to put the time in to make it great if there is a need for it.
So let me know!
http://romwatcher.com
Seems like it could prove to be helpful. Go for it.
Its sounds very nice idea.. I visited ur site and i founded it very promising.!!!
nice job...
Sent from my GT-I9001 using xda app-developers app
As most developers host their own roms on private servers to watch and control downloads many will not be willing to allow their work to be posted in a place where they have no control. Think about it for a min. If a dev releases a rom with a major bug like bricking a device they can pull it. This has been tried many times already and has never gone anywhere.
People flash roms like it is something cool to do without thinking about what could happen. Flashing an Expermental OS to a $500 device is not something to be done for fun with no understanding of what they are doing.
I understand what your saying. The site still uses all the Download links the devs provided so if they pull the download it will just be a deadlink. But yeah the management of actually pulling the ROM from the site would be a hassle. Plus judging from the results of this thread there doesn't seem to be that much interest in the idea. haha
zelendel said:
As most developers host their own roms on private servers to watch and control downloads many will not be willing to allow their work to be posted in a place where they have no control. Think about it for a min. If a dev releases a rom with a major bug like bricking a device they can pull it. This has been tried many times already and has never gone anywhere.
People flash roms like it is something cool to do without thinking about what could happen. Flashing an Expermental OS to a $500 device is not something to be done for fun with no understanding of what they are doing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Seems to be useful. Many users try to get stable ROM's for their mobiles.
I would suggest to add "stable" and "experimental" ROM's category tab in the site for each mobile you provide.
Also get permission from the developers before posting their download links on your site!
Good Luck with your site!:good:
The Stable/experimental attribute is a good idea. I have been contacting developers asking permission and so far no one has had a problem with anything :fingers-crossed:
Thanks!
shashivydyula said:
Seems to be useful. Many users try to get stable ROM's for their mobiles.
I would suggest to add "stable" and "experimental" ROM's category tab in the site for each mobile you provide.
Also get permission from the developers before posting their download links on your site!
Good Luck with your site!:good:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This project was on the back burner for a little while but I have starting working on it again. I added the ability for anyone to add a rom.
I will keep you guys posted.
As always any feedback is appreciated!
First off I'm a new entrant to android, and I would like to build AOSP rom for our device. I have read quite a few posts on the internet about it. In one post Its said that the steps to AOSP building are 1) setting up environment
2) Syncing device tree 3) downloading the android source 4) downloading the drivers (kernal source code?)
4) building it. Is it actually that simple?
Forgive me if I'm wrong.
Lets discuss the possibility of AOSP rom for our devices.
Can some one post all the resources which we have, that will help building the rom?
Also, this thread can be a starting point for many developers out there.
kr1shna said:
First off I'm a new entrant to android, and I would like to build AOSP rom for our device. I have read quite a few posts on the internet about it. In one post Its said that the steps to AOSP building are 1) setting up environment
2) Syncing device tree 3) downloading the android source 4) downloading the drivers (kernal source code?)
4) building it. Is it actually that simple?
Forgive me if I'm wrong.
Lets discuss the possibility of AOSP rom for our devices.
Can some one post all the resources which we have, that will help building the rom?
Also, this thread can be a starting point for many developers out there.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi kr1shna.
I saw your post on another thread involving the same topic.
The fact of the matter is, with the Mate 7 and Huawei devices in general, that Huawei does not release certain sources needed for creating a custom kernel, meaning that the only ROMs that can be created for these devices have to based off the existing EMUI sources, meaning there really isn't much use in doing it at all. @gabry3795 has managed to get the GPU drivers running (reported on his thread, which can be found here), however that's as far as anyone has come. After that the only way to get the device to actually boot (as far as my very limited knowledge on these things go) is to implement Huawei's sources and files, meaning you will just eventually end up with EMUI again.
TL;DR: Huawei is a jackass when it comes to releasing sources, meaning creating custom, non EMUI-ROMs and kernels is pretty much impossible.
If you do figure it out though, rest assured you will have the praise of all of us here that's absolutely sick of EMUI. So best of luck to you, however don't get your hopes up too high.
Scruffykid said:
Hi kr1shna.
I saw your post on another thread involving the same topic.
The fact of the matter is, with the Mate 7 and Huawei devices in general, that Huawei does not release certain sources needed for creating a custom kernel, meaning that the only ROMs that can be created for these devices have to based off the existing EMUI sources, meaning there really isn't much use in doing it at all. @gabry3795 has managed to get the GPU drivers running (reported on his thread, which can be found here), however that's as far as anyone has come. After that the only way to get the device to actually boot (as far as my very limited knowledge on these things go) is to implement Huawei's sources and files, meaning you will just eventually end up with EMUI again.
TL;DR: Huawei is a jackass when it comes to releasing sources, meaning creating custom, non EMUI-ROMs and kernels is pretty much impossible.
If you do figure it out though, rest assured you will have the praise of all of us here that's absolutely sick of EMUI. So best of luck to you, however don't get your hopes up too high.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you for the information, so buying a huawei was a bad decision. I should have got the htc m9 or a9 instead.
kr1shna said:
Thank you for the information, so buying a huawei was a bad decision. I should have got the htc m9 or a9 instead.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
very bad decision! i have been trying to get help from huawei to release their sources for over a year but have had no luck. at this point im pretty much done and will probably just end up buying the next nexus device regardless of screen size. its sad that their are no good 6 inch phones with custom rom support.
i was going to try and pursue legal action but seeing as how the mate 7 was not legally released in the US, their is no legal recourse. im hoping someone in the EU could do some research regarding legal action against huawei in the hope of pressuring them to release source codes.
Is there anyone who can provide in detail the details of caf based roms security patches. Ive seen people say they are always on par or better than aosp patches but im not sure. I cant find any solid information on it apart from a few comments.
Ive used some roms that are caf based but they dont say what security patch they are on.
Anyone?
TbagBaggins said:
Anyone?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for everyones help, you've been phenomenal.
Heh, a nice conversation you had there. If the question wasn't answered, it either is confusing, or not a lot of people know about it. I would assume that patches depend from version to version and from ROM to ROM. Some ROMS are writing integrations with aosp patches. I am sure there is a Q&A or documentation on each ROM about this specific issue. You would have to read a lot.
Josh Ross said:
Heh, a nice conversation you had there. If the question wasn't answered, it either is confusing, or not a lot of people know about it. I would assume that patches depend from version to version and from ROM to ROM. Some ROMS are writing integrations with aosp patches. I am sure there is a Q&A or documentation on each ROM about this specific issue. You would have to read a lot.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have looked everywhere, there is nothing lol
I read somewhere about Lineage OS a while back, February maybe? Listing CAF patches since they are basing their Aosp model with it. Most ROM's now are going with aosp-caf mixture anyways. In any case, I am far from an expert in this situation and just reading occasionally.
Josh Ross said:
I read somewhere about Lineage OS a while back, February maybe? Listing CAF patches since they are basing their Aosp model with it. Most ROM's now are going with aosp-caf mixture anyways. In any case, I am far from an expert in this situation and just reading occasionally.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thing is even the caf based roms will have a security patch level. But in the one im using it does not.
Hmm, in theory, you could try contacting the devs of the ROMS and gathering the data yourself. Honestly, out of my league any further, I would thoroughly read on the technology and see what general security implications it has. Afterward, you can always try making presumptions. Sorry, wish I could help you more.
Josh Ross said:
Hmm, in theory, you could try contacting the devs of the ROMS and gathering the data yourself. Honestly, out of my league any further, I would thoroughly read on the technology and see what general security implications it has. Afterward, you can always try making presumptions. Sorry, wish I could help you more.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have messaged multiple devs of roms who base on caf and never had a response. Ive had a couple of comments in threads from other members but none have provided any proof of it. I looked at the code aurora site and have gone through multiple threads. Cant get to the bottom of it. I cant find concrete evidence that caf security is on par or further ahead of google patches. Really cant believe something like this is hard to find out, especially when everyone moans about security patches its funny.
If you have gone through that many options and got nothing, this is actually concerning. Hopefully, someone qualified from the forum can elaborate on the question.
Josh Ross said:
If you have gone through that many options and got nothing, this is actually concerning. Hopefully, someone qualified from the forum can elaborate on the question.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is concerning considering its srcurity. People have just said caf patches are equal or above googles patch level. But not providing any evidence. There is nothing concenrete about this on the entire xda
In theory, no one would put patches that are worse, that's a fact. If they were worse, I think half the Android security researchers would lynch it left and right. Since they are on par or better, I guess there are not many reasons to be concerned for a person that doesn't care about it that much (me). For you, however, I can see the concern.
Josh Ross said:
In theory, no one would put patches that are worse, that's a fact. If they were worse, I think half the Android security researchers would lynch it left and right. Since they are on par or better, I guess there are not many reasons to be concerned for a person that doesn't care about it that much (me). For you, however, I can see the concern.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well its probably true that they are equal or beyond google because they are provided by qualcomm. But i just want to see evidence of it lol. And 99% of caf roms are hybrids anyway which have aosp patches lol
I guess it is just one of those things that are going to take a while to get to. Good luck!
Josh Ross said:
I guess it is just one of those things that are going to take a while to get to. Good luck!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
After finding a rom, the developer had answered this in his faq. Shame no one else has ever thought to do it.
CAF security patches all show on the phone as months out of date, however he said that even though on the screen it will be outdated he checked the commits and found that they had been updated they just dont show up like googles. Im sticking with aosp or aosp/caf roms from now on. I was on paranoid android but no one answered the question and the only thing the developer of that rom did was thank the person who told me to google it. Nice of him.
Thanks for the update. Eventually, with enough time, research, and a little bit of luck you can find the answers. But it really is weird, that there is not extensive documentation or discussion on this topic.