Related
I'm new to Android but not new to Linux and wondering what is necessary to get these ROMs (and others) working on the CDMA Hero. What are the major differences, proprietary drivers? Kernel modules?
New Cyanogen ROM, just released
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=567610
In other words, what's stopping us from running these ROM's right along with G1/Dream users?
I'm curious also... would love to try his roms...
Since Android 1.6 was supposed to add CDMA support I would think they should work as well as 2.0 unless the developers have taken the cdma support out of the code in their roms to shrink the size to fit on the G1's.
If I had a Hero I would be giving it a try most likely. I might try picking one up this week since Best Buy has them down to $99. I just wish it had a keyboard.
I'll try when I get home from work.
On a side note, even if this rom doesn't work, I should be able to boot into the recovery rom no matter what... riiiiiiight?
herzzreh said:
I'll try when I get home from work.
On a side note, even if this rom doesn't work, I should be able to boot into the recovery rom no matter what... riiiiiiight?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Correct! The recovery image isn't touched by normal ROMS typically.
I'm tempted. Can this be applied right over the MoDaCo ROM?
I have tried a couple things with these. I tried flashing it outright. Wouldnt get past the initial htc boot screen. So I replaced the kernel in the boot.img of Cyans rom with ours, that still didnt work. Then I tried replacing the entire boot.img and still no boot working. I think Donut uses the 2.6.29 kernel or whatever it is. Ours is .27 so I think we would need to recompile the .29 kernel and pray our drivers work with it. Please, someone else try it too and see if they can get it working. I would love you forever if you could. If not, we will just have to wait until HTC gets us Eclair.
Thanks
Thanks for trying this, chuckhriczko and others.
I'm mainly coming at this from the pure Linux point of view: shouldn't these ROM's run anywhere (barring proprietary bits)? Shouldn't we be able to "share and share alike" between platforms, Hero/Dream/G1/whatever? If there is a chip architecture difference, fine then we need a recompiled kernel. Obviously there is also the question of firmware, but that's a given on all phones.
Otherwise, shouldn't these ROM's be fairly universal? Or if they are not, I'd like to know what makes ROM building such a unique endeavor for each phone.
5tr4t4 said:
Thanks for trying this, chuckhriczko and others.
I'm mainly coming at this from the pure Linux point of view: shouldn't these ROM's run anywhere (barring proprietary bits)? Shouldn't we be able to "share and share alike" between platforms, Hero/Dream/G1/whatever? If there is a chip architecture difference, fine then we need a recompiled kernel. Obviously there is also the question of firmware, but that's a given on all phones.
Otherwise, shouldn't these ROM's be fairly universal? Or if they are not, I'd like to know what makes ROM building such a unique endeavor for each phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I believe it's mostly the proprietary drivers for some of the hardware as well as needing a kernel recompile...once HTC releases the CDMA kernel, I'm sure we'll see a lot more (that or some genius will reverse engineer it...either way!)
The other thing to consider is that most of these ROMs are based on something...they take what's existing and tweak the heck out of it (I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of ROMs can trace their roots back to an official vendor image at some point).
I'm actually trying to setup a build environment and poke around but I'm starting from ground zero on the mobile platform side of things so I wouldn't hold out for me (and finding a Java 1.5 runtime is surprisingly hard these days ).
I'm noticing that we're seeing more and more ROM's pop up (primarily gutted ROMs focussed on eeking more speed as opposed to MoDaCo who went for more features).
thecodemonk said:
I believe it's mostly the proprietary drivers for some of the hardware as well as needing a kernel recompile...once HTC releases the CDMA kernel, I'm sure we'll see a lot more (that or some genius will reverse engineer it...either way!)
The other thing to consider is that most of these ROMs are based on something...they take what's existing and tweak the heck out of it (I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of ROMs can trace their roots back to an official vendor image at some point).
I'm actually trying to setup a build environment and poke around but I'm starting from ground zero on the mobile platform side of things so I wouldn't hold out for me (and finding a Java 1.5 runtime is surprisingly hard these days ).
I'm noticing that we're seeing more and more ROM's pop up (primarily gutted ROMs focussed on eeking more speed as opposed to MoDaCo who went for more features).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What OS are you using? If your using a Debian based linux then you can get it from the Debian Lenny repositories. One word about this though, it killed my existing Java 1.6 so I had to reinstall it when I needed it. Otherwise that works.
And yeah, we are primarily doing gutted roms because that is all we know up to this point. It is very difficult to find help from those who know all about recompiling a kernel and things like that. Like I said, I couldnt get Cyanogen to even boot on my phone but obviously, it should at the very least do that. But only one dev on these forums ever helped me with my CDMA roms and that was Mlign from the Dream forums. Everyone else (understandably busy) ignored me. Im not saying anything bad about them but it's just harder for people to learn. Patience will give us what we desire though.
vendor tree for cyanogen heroc
im a noob and dont know how to build it but its here:
http://github.com/darchstar/vendor_cyanogen_heroc
Thread gravedigging much?
yes haha i want cyanogen on my hero lol
So, coming from a string of G1's and a Nexus, I cannot stand SenseUi. At ALL. I can live with the widgets and launcher- they are actually tolerable- what I cant accept are the keyboard, the way contacts are brought up, the lack of cut/paste in several areas, and all the frilly crud that goes along with it. I seek a TRUE vanilla rom, based on Android components not HTC. People constantly recommend using advanced launcher or one similar, but these are just launchers- they dont change the stuff back to stock that I seek. So my question is, can there ever be a REAL vanilla rom that has none of the Sense components? Is it possible to de-theme these areas in similar fashion to how the current de-sensing works, or would it require that HTC releases a vanilla version (which they never will). I guess I am asking, am I fighting a loosing battle?
You are coming from an N1 and asking this question?
Really?
Cyanogenmod ring a bell?
i was in the same boat as you. i am on cyanogen now, however there are a few issues with this port. on the nexus i didn't ever have any issues with cm6 but on the incredible you have to install another kernel after you install cm6 so that the camera will work, the camcorder just doesn't work yet, and when i have wifi on i get a reboot about once a day. i live with it because like you i hate sense ui but i wish they would have released a n1 for verizon. they did just release the source code for 2.6.32 which is froyo today, so the code shoulod be added into the nightlies of cm6 shortly.
It's been said that the latest radio fixes many (if not all) of those problems in Cyanogen on DInc. I can't attest to this being true or not, but some people were talking about it last night in the "Unrevoked - Forever" thread in the dev section.
cool! so there is hope. I figured the CM rom would be truly vanilla, but since it had so many little oddities I haven't given it a go yet. Good to know there is the possibility. Thanks guys
gospeed.racer said:
cool! so there is hope. I figured the CM rom would be truly vanilla, but since it had so many little oddities I haven't given it a go yet. Good to know there is the possibility. Thanks guys
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The new .32 kernel source that was just released will also allow koush to finish CM6 for the incredible. Basically now that this new kernel is out the bluetooth stack and everything else including the camcorder not working in CM6 will all work once implemented.
Even though the bluetooth works perfect in CM6 unlike normal senseui roms. /letting out BT steam
...
I wonder when this will be ready?
Hello,
This was brought up in another thread that is now locked.This post asked the question.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=11287492&postcount=40
and this is the blog post by Cyanogen
http://www.cyanogenmod.com/home/a-note-on-unofficial-ports-and-how-to-get-it-right
From what I can make from the blog post that Cyanogen put up on the CM website the Epic 4g as well as the other Galaxy S CM ports are not backed by Cyanogen because they do not go through the normal chain of how they add their code into their source code tree.The Galaxy S CM github has many changes to the stock android code that could possible and probably does break the code from being compiled for other phones. The framework is modified to work with the Samsung RIL that our phones use. The CM team will make additions to the stock android code not modifiy the stock code itself. So from my understanding of thing this is why Cyanogen does not consider what the CMSGS team has done as a part of the mainline CM code base. I believe this goes for all the Galaxy S phones not just the Epic.
Does being backed by the CM team make it get done any quicker? If so....
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App
Being backed by the Cm team would definitely speed up the porting process, Cyanogen had the Evo Release Client up and running in a little over a month without source
So its a matter of pulling the source together and prperly placing it into their source control so their build bot can properly dov what build bots do...build...then CM helps with the port process?
If I think I'm following that right...somone better start uploading code to Cyanogens t&c's(terms and conditions) so we can have some epic awesomesauce.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App
Most importantly, no major hardware functionality should be broken.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What this statement implies is that no Cyanogenmod port is ever gonna be official right away; there's always an in-progress period where major functions are broken. Regardless of other issues, that's where our Epic port is at right now and part of the reason why it's not official.
Poryhack said:
What this statement implies is that no Cyanogenmod port is ever gonna be official right away; there's always an in-progress period where major functions are broken. Regardless of other issues, that's where our Epic port is at right now and part of the reason why it's not official.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True but there is code that is changed in the Galaxy S port that doesn't get changed at all in other CM ports as far as I know.
If we had HTC Epic's instead of Samsung Epic's and still identical devices... CM would officially support the Epic.
Period. They can say whatever they want but we all know this to be the case. You can't tell me Samsung changes their code that much more then HTC... last I checked Sense was a much more in depth overall to the underlying OS then Touchwiz is.. but maybe not.
The thing is, HTC uses the same hardware across the board (snapdragon processors, same camera etc.) which makes Rom ports much much easier to pull off, whereas the Hummingbird in the Galaxy S is only in the Galaxy S and only the Unlocked Galaxies and Gsm have froyo source so far.
Thanks for osting this skeeter
Android Creative Syndicate- From spontaneous ingenuity, comes creative brilliance
063_XOBX said:
The thing is, HTC uses the same hardware across the board (snapdragon processors, same camera etc.) which makes Rom ports much much easier to pull off, whereas the Hummingbird in the Galaxy S is only in the Galaxy S and only the Unlocked Galaxies and Gsm have froyo source so far.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The changes in the code have nothing at all to do with the cpu its all for the radio which even having froyo source will not help a bit with.Its all in the way the code changes were done. Rather then adding to the base code in CM the code was directly changed which is what Cyanogen has an issue with doing so basically could and probably has broken the radio code for other cdma phones, I don't know what or if any of the code in the frameworks was changed for the gsm Galaxy S phones so I can't say for sure that it the source from the CMSGS github wouldn't work on another GSM phone I only know that changes were made to get it working on the Epic and Fascinate.I don't think what the CMSGS team did was wrong they did what they had to do to get things working and from the time I spent working on it it didn't seem like there was much input from the CM team at all but that was probably happening in another irc channel that I was not invited into if they were involved.I was hoping that the Galaxy S would have had more interest from the CM team as a whole I know a phone or two was collected and donated to at least one dev and i also heard that Koush was supposed to take over the Captivate port of CM I am not sure if that ever happened or not but the Epic and Fascinate were from the beginning the red headed step children of the Galaxy S line it really is too bad that there wasn't for developers around to help work on it and make an offical Cyanogen backed CM port.I blame it all on the Evo personally if the Epic came out first it would be the Epic sporting all the kernel and roms that you can find in the Evo forum instead we are left with a handful or less of devs and a phone that is far from the potential that it has.
This statement brings up one of my biggest questions I have for the epic forums that I have yet to understand. If a lack of devs are the biggest problem for the epic why is it they are not attempting to train anyone else. Here's my point. I have cataloged every bit (and still am) of info I know about themeing android and the samsung epic. I wrote guides breaking down every part of installing the tools necessary and using them so anyone just sitting down with a fresh windows and their first android phone would understand. Where are our dev guides besides "read developer.android.com". I've read it, I've set everything up. I've downloaded source, I've even ran make with success. But it does nothing without proprietary files. How do you plug them in. extract files.sh dont work without cm6 running on my phone. Where do we learn how to edit our build.prop, init.rc, compile drivers and modules. Joey krimm it's a great beginners source but what about updates since the stall between ubuntu 10 64 support, and 64 becoming the default. I feel like not only it's sammy and sprint at fault, but so are devs that arent open with their knowledge. The best gift this community could have gotten in all of this "down time"waiting was time spent learning. Devs stuck waiting on modems and source, start writing and teaching so when you get that source, you'll have a team behind you. That's the spirit of linux and it dont exist on xda's Samsung Epic Development section!
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk
dreamsforgotten said:
This statement brings up one of my biggest questions I have for the epic forums that I have yet to understand. If a lack of devs are the biggest problem for the epic why is it they are not attempting to train anyone else. Here's my point. I have cataloged every bit (and still am) of info I know about themeing android and the samsung epic. I wrote guides breaking down every part of installing the tools necessary and using them so anyone just sitting down with a fresh windows and their first android phone would understand. Where are our dev guides besides "read developer.android.com". I've read it, I've set everything up. I've downloaded source, I've even ran make with success. But it does nothing without proprietary files. How do you plug them in. extract files.sh dont work without cm6 running on my phone. Where do we learn how to edit our build.prop, init.rc, compile drivers and modules. Joey krimm it's a great beginners source but what about updates since the stall between ubuntu 10 64 support, and 64 becoming the default. I feel like not only it's sammy and sprint at fault, but so are devs that arent open with their knowledge. The best gift this community could have gotten in all of this "down time"waiting was time spent learning. Devs stuck waiting on modems and source, start writing and teaching so when you get that source, you'll have a team behind you. That's the spirit of linux and it dont exist on xda's Samsung Epic Development section!
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Where's the thank spam? hah.
I've slowly been dipping myself into the Developer 'pool' for the epic if you will..and at first when I started working nobody really ever helped out..they just threw me a link and was like..start reading blah blah blah..
Reading only gets you so far; Imho you learn better when you've got the experience of working first hand with the material you're trying to learn.
dreamsforgotten said:
This statement brings up one of my biggest questions I have for the epic forums that I have yet to understand. If a lack of devs are the biggest problem for the epic why is it they are not attempting to train anyone else. Here's my point. I have cataloged every bit (and still am) of info I know about themeing android and the samsung epic. I wrote guides breaking down every part of installing the tools necessary and using them so anyone just sitting down with a fresh windows and their first android phone would understand. Where are our dev guides besides "read developer.android.com". I've read it, I've set everything up. I've downloaded source, I've even ran make with success. But it does nothing without proprietary files. How do you plug them in. extract files.sh dont work without cm6 running on my phone. Where do we learn how to edit our build.prop, init.rc, compile drivers and modules. Joey krimm it's a great beginners source but what about updates since the stall between ubuntu 10 64 support, and 64 becoming the default. I feel like not only it's sammy and sprint at fault, but so are devs that arent open with their knowledge. The best gift this community could have gotten in all of this "down time"waiting was time spent learning. Devs stuck waiting on modems and source, start writing and teaching so when you get that source, you'll have a team behind you. That's the spirit of linux and it dont exist on xda's Samsung Epic Development section!
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
When it comes to working on CM most of the work that needs to be done is all coding which we have very few if anyone java coders. Also you can use extract-files.sh on a phone running straight DK28 to get the propietary files needed to build CM with.When it comes to everything else most of the devs have taught themselves how to do the things they so by trial and error and alot of reading the internet. I know I have little coding skill so its would be hard to teach someone something you don't know how to do yourself and alot of the other things like putting togther device files to build android even on the google site has no real information on how to do it at all the best way I think is to just compare what the other phones use and piece it together from that.
Yet it still makes me wonder; why no epic/galaxy s support? Virtually every other phone, and even some tablets like the gtab, have CM support and even CM7 support. Even the HTC Hero, with obviously no source code for 2.2 or 2.3 and no official 2.2 ever to be released, has a working build of CM7. Is it pure incompetence of Epic developers? Is it a lack of interest? Is it simply cyanogen not wanting to support galaxy s devices? I really don't know, but I'd really like to.
theimpaler747 said:
Yet it still makes me wonder; why no epic/galaxy s support? Virtually every other phone, and even some tablets like the gtab, have CM support and even CM7 support. Even the HTC Hero, with obviously no source code for 2.2 or 2.3 and no official 2.2 ever to be released, has a working build of CM7. Is it pure incompetence of Epic developers? Is it a lack of interest? Is it simply cyanogen not wanting to support galaxy s devices? I really don't know, but I'd really like to.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From what I can see its not that Cyanogen doesn't want to support the galaxy s devices its that it seems they don't give any input to the devs that are working on CM for the galaxy s. They have basically split off from the main CM source tree itself and run their own source tree. It seemed like (and this is from the limited amount I saw on irc) that there was no input from the CM team they just let them work on their own. CM has ways to setup the code so the source tree remains workable across the board on all the devices it supports, the cmsgs team has just taken a different route on things and gone their own route thus making it not backed by cyanogen, was it the right way to do it who knows but it has made all the galaxy s devices redheaded step children in the eyes of Cyanogen and the CM team as a whole by the looks of it. I know from the point of view of having an Epic the major hold up to it is having coders with the proper skills to do the coding in general we had one coder working on it I don't know if he is still involved or not at this point. All I know is to make is a backed by Cyanogen CM port the coding that has been done so far would have to be completely redone in the ways that the rest of the CM team adds code to the CM source tree with as little to no modification of the stock CM code as possible.
Also I would like to add that I am not trying to put anyone down that is working on the CMSGS team they have done CM working on these devices and am in no way bad mouthing the work that has been done. This is just my view on things and why Cyanogen doesn't back the galaxy s CM ports.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk
theimpaler747 said:
Yet it still makes me wonder; why no epic/galaxy s support? Virtually every other phone, and even some tablets like the gtab, have CM support and even CM7 support. Even the HTC Hero, with obviously no source code for 2.2 or 2.3 and no official 2.2 ever to be released, has a working build of CM7. Is it pure incompetence of Epic developers? Is it a lack of interest? Is it simply cyanogen not wanting to support galaxy s devices? I really don't know, but I'd really like to.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, trying to comprehend everything that is going on here, I feel like the CMTeam does not feel the Epic is worth porting to CM7 due to it's delay on a FroYo source, which I am positive would make the Epic's porting much easier.
However, it still makes me wonder why they could not have used 2.1 to port to CM7, as like you said, the Hero has been able to do.
It also confuses me that the Captivate has even been able to run a Gingerbread port (I believe cyanogen) then. I realize that the Captivate has no 4G or a slide or anything, but the fact that they were willing to work off of 2.1 I assume gets me wondering why no one has tried making a CM port for the Epic's 2.1
I am trying to understand this as best as I can, so please forgive me if I seem to be giving false input on this conversation.
Its the time taken to port a phone, combined with the number of phones above yours on their list. The fact is they have a list of other phones they feel like investing their time in over the galaxy s line in general which is even more of a reason all knowledge of development on the Epic should be layed out even in pieces like the rest of the information here. Honestly thinking "leak it to noobnl, then we'll get all the goods" isn't going to cut it. Java coders, ubuntu fanatics who have compiled a few apps, and new people willing to learn should be putting heads together compiling new ****. If we dont start a group effort of making a bone stock aosp froyo altering the existing drivers were not going to be much further with source code. And it should be layed out here irc dont work for everyone.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk
acer1096xxx said:
Well, trying to comprehend everything that is going on here, I feel like the CMTeam does not feel the Epic is worth porting to CM7 due to it's delay on a FroYo source, which I am positive would make the Epic's porting much easier.
However, it still makes me wonder why they could not have used 2.1 to port to CM7, as like you said, the Hero has been able to do.
It also confuses me that the Captivate has even been able to run a Gingerbread port (I believe cyanogen) then. I realize that the Captivate has no 4G or a slide or anything, but the fact that they were willing to work off of 2.1 I assume gets me wondering why no one has tried making a CM port for the Epic's 2.1
I am trying to understand this as best as I can, so please forgive me if I seem to be giving false input on this conversation.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But like I said, there's CM7 (Android 2.3 if you don't know) for the HTC hero, with no 2.2 or 2.3 source code. So why not us?
theimpaler747 said:
But like I said, there's CM7 (Android 2.3 if you don't know) for the HTC hero, with no 2.2 or 2.3 source code. So why not us?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Alright, this is what I believe.
The Hero does not have 4G, or a QWERTY keyboard, two things the Epic does have that could make a pure AOSP port more difficult without a source. Also, HTC runs Snapdragon throughout the whole system, making tweaks a lot more simpler than SGS's Hummingbird Processor, which uses something else (I can't remember) with their system as well.
The last part I'm not sure if that makes a big deal or not, since I have seen a (what I think) CM7 port for the Samsung Captivate, so it may simply be because of 4G and the QWERTY keyboard.
I see what you're saying though. I guess the CMTeam should have no problem making a CM7 port based off of the Epic's 2.1 source...maybe they're just waiting because 2.2 might make it easier and supposedly 2.2 is coming soon so there'd be no point in starting now...otherwise I have no clue.
acer1096xxx said:
Alright, this is what I believe.
The Hero does not have 4G, or a QWERTY keyboard, two things the Epic does have that could make a pure AOSP port more difficult without a source. Also, HTC runs Snapdragon throughout the whole system, making tweaks a lot more simpler than SGS's Hummingbird Processor, which uses something else (I can't remember) with their system as well.
The last part I'm not sure if that makes a big deal or not, since I have seen a (what I think) CM7 port for the Samsung Captivate, so it may simply be because of 4G and the QWERTY keyboard.
I see what you're saying though. I guess the CMTeam should have no problem making a CM7 port based off of the Epic's 2.1 source...maybe they're just waiting because 2.2 might make it easier and supposedly 2.2 is coming soon so there'd be no point in starting now...otherwise I have no clue.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think we also have 'limited functionality' w/ 2.1 as far as the phone's full capability.
2.2 will unlock some hidden potential IMO. Could be the reason why all the hubbub to 'wait for 2.2'.. again, just speculating.
Here's what Cyanogen said on the Official CyanogenMod Forums.
http://www.cyanogenmod.com/home/a-note-on-unofficial-ports-and-how-to-get-it-right
With this said, why don't we jump on the bandwagon and just join the CM team? Why don't we make this thing official (if we haven't tried already)? Just a thought, so don't kill me with your opinions. The Devs here are freakin' legit here and I'd like to see 'em do some of the work on the CM Team.
I trust the devs I download from because I follow their work. I don't need it to be "official". Besides, I like the personal touch and one-on-one support I get right here on the xda eris forum. And there's variety.
We could debate the politics of branding and what is CM and what is not CM. But the devs here disclose their sources, changes, known issues and brand their roms as uniquely their own while providing the support and updates. I don't think there's any confusion as to what is 'official' and what is not as the Android Police article referenced in CM's statement implies.
+1. The devs here are excellent, and the devs that base there ROMs on CM list them as "based" on CM not the official CM ROM. I'm not aware of any confusion that this has caused. I'm also not sure what creative constraints would be put on our devs if they went CM. I like the way they individualize the roms for thier personalities and their audiences. I also am not sure what benefit would come with being an "official" CM rom. Just my 2 cents.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not discrediting the Developers that cook these ROM by ANY MEANS whatsoever. They do incredible work with what they push, but here's what I'm saying. The CM ROMS are based off of Official CM Source Code, yes, but I think we'd be making it way easier on ourselves and the developers if we were an actual part of CyanogenMod. If we were a part of CM, then we'd get the CM ROMS as perfect as they can get and THEN the developers can add their own customization to a ROM based off of the Eris Release of CyanogenMod. They all are already doing the work that it would take to actually /BE/ a part of the CyanogenMod team, so why not get on with CyanogenMod so we can be official, and THEN the devs can customize and tweak ROMS they way they see fit?
Once again, absolutely NO discredit to the developers here, and I understand what it takes to keep these ROMS current and I am very appreciative of their work.
The CM ROMs that we have are either built from CM source or ported from the Hero builds already. I'm not really sure what this would give us other than maybe a "go team go" feeling and maybe a little more help than we already get. But the Eris and CDMA Hero are so similar, that doesn't matter much in my opinion as long as any Hero issues get worked out.
The CM buildbots are just building from source and posting the results, much like you would get if you ran EasyDev or did it manually. Now, there's a lot of work going on before that with the code, of course. But... That's what we use too.
I'm not against this at all. It just means that someone will have to 1) want to do it 2) have the time 3) convince Team Douche to let them in. I seem to remember that someone asked early on and the response was that we had to send them an Eris. This might have changed.
This comes up every so often. I guess one of us can find out what we would need to do at least...
Nothing would really change for the end user if we became official cm at this point. Basically one of the devs here that builds from source would submit their vendor tree to the cm source and they would be responsible for maintaining it just like we do now. The only real difference would be that it would get built by the cm build bot and nightly's would be released. I tweeted to cyanogen about getting my 2.2 tree in there along time ago when 2.2 was new but either I did it wrong(not a twitter person lol) or it just got lost in the many many tweets that go through cyanogens account. I never really pushed the issue more because of the extra time it would take me personally and it was just easier to work on my own schedule.
The only added benefit would be that maybe if there was an issue we could not fix then the cm team would take an extra look at our specific phone to help out but really since our phone is so close to the hero and it has official support they sort of fix most of our bugs anyway. I've personally always tried to give the cm team all the credit they deserve(which is alot) and I think the other dev's do the same.
Here's what Cyanogen posted up to www.cyanogenmod.com a week or so again. It looks like we'd need an interested dev here to stop by #cyanogenmod-dev on Freenode to start the process.
I think (and I use xtrSENSE, so I could be wrong) that a lot of people would like and "official" CM port for the Eris, just so they'd have "peace of mind" knowing they've got something "official."
And again, as we've seen mentioned in this post, it couldn't hurt to ask. Provided Team Douche doesn't actually want an Eris, we only stand to gain extra help on our ports.
Cyanogen said:
There’s been some recent talk about unofficial versions of CyanogenMod being created and released on sites like XDA, with large amounts of missing features and broken functionality, and I just wanted to talk about our position on this.
An “official” CyanogenMod version is one that uses our code review system, our source repository, and our mirror network. It should look, act, and feel like CM on any other device, and more importantly, it should follow our release schedules (which is a “when it’s ready” kind of thing, but we do plan our final/RC releases when we feel it’s ready). Most importantly, no major hardware functionality should be broken.
We want to see CM available for every device out there, and our infrastructure (and our developer community) is there for anyone to use. We spend a lot of time making new releases of Android backward-compatible with devices that are not ready for them, and we also spend much time making all of these (sometimes not so pretty) changes co-exist together without breaking other devices. The more eyes on your code, the better it will be.
That said, as much as we’d like it to be, the CMSGS project is not yet an official part of CyanogenMod. There are also a number of other unofficial ports out there which haven’t been submitted to us that we’d love to include. If you’re interested, stop by #cyanogenmod-dev on Freenode. If you didn’t get it from our mirror network or the CM forums, don’t expect it to be up to our standards.
The biggest thing to keep in mind when porting to a new device is to think about how your change is going to affect other devices. This is the biggest reason why we aren’t supporting Samsung devices other than the Nexus S yet. Don’t change hardcoded default values just to suit your device. Use the configuration options available, or add new ones with the original values as defaults. Do a build for another unrelated device after you make your changes (it helps to have another device to test with, of course) and verify it as well. Android was made for this, so do it right.
Like I’ve said so many times before, CyanogenMod is all about the community. And our community can help you too. I’d love to see more of these ports contributed to the project- it’s only going to make things better. We’ve grown from just a mod to what I’d call an “Android distribution” and we need to keep our standards high.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh no, does this mean we're all running unofficial CM ROMs ?
Wait, everything is working fine though... Official, unofficial, pffft
hallstevenson said:
Oh no, does this mean we're all running unofficial CM ROMs ?
Wait, everything is working fine though... Official, unofficial, pffft
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1 10 char......
A dev would have to maintain the device and be committed to building it up, like Darchstar was (is?) for the Hero CDMA. It really all depends on the Dev/Devs for the device, for example I've seen Cyanogen say in his twitter that he would also like to see the Dream/Saphhire continue to be developed for but no one has stepped up to maintain it. I can also only imagine that there are some qualifications for someone to maintain a device. Here is a list of the current maintainers for the devices
https://github.com/cvpcs/android_vendor_cyanogen/blob/gingerbread/CHANGELOG.mkdn
Yeah, I can understand that. That's all I was saying, though. If they were doing all of the same work anyway I just thought it would be nice to have. I also didn't know if anyone had pursued this in the past, but seeing as how Conap had already tried I think I'm good with that. I also have no problems running the unofficial ROMs, just so you know. Thanks, guys!
It's not like we just want it to be official... but porting a ROM has its downsides. There's nothing to say devs couldn't take a ROM that is NATIVELY supported for the eris (and not for the hero) and do exactly what they already do... we would just be cutting out work for them and it would definitely effect the end user.
Hungry Man said:
It's not like we just want it to be official... but porting a ROM has its downsides. There's nothing to say devs couldn't take a ROM that is NATIVELY supported for the eris (and not for the hero) and do exactly what they already do... we would just be cutting out work for them and it would definitely effect the end user.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the way i do it is best for me,,and seems to be going fine,,, the cm7 ports have been alot better then the froyo ,, and alot faster ,, look how long it took the froyo camera to work,, gb the camera works outta the box,,
Hungry Man said:
It's not like we just want it to be official... but porting a ROM has its downsides. There's nothing to say devs couldn't take a ROM that is NATIVELY supported for the eris (and not for the hero) and do exactly what they already do... we would just be cutting out work for them and it would definitely effect the end user.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is more than one definition of porting that people are using around here.
1) Porting to an unsupported device = compiling source, building a vendor tree, and getting it to work on said device (This is basically what the CyanogenMod team would do to make it an official build, although they would integrate the changes into the main source. The changes would mostly still be in a separate vendor tree in the repo. And it would be 'official'. From a practical/technical view, what workshed is doing is the same thing that the CM team would do.)
2) Porting an existing build to an unsupported device = taking an existing, already compiled ROM and making it work on said device (This is what tazz is doing with the Heroc build. This works out well when going from the Heroc.)
Anyone, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that I have that right.
The only downside that I see from either of these is MAYBE not getting quite the support that we would get if the Eris had an 'official' build. I really don't think it's affecting much of anything, IMHO. It might in the future as the Heroc and Eris become more and more dated devices. But then, many of you won't really care because you're kids will be using them as mp3 players anyway while you use your fancy, new quad core HTC Destroyer 6G. (What's a Beiber?)
gnarlyc said:
There is more than one definition of porting that people are using around here.
1) Porting to an unsupported device = compiling source, building a vendor tree, and getting it to work on said device (This is basically what the CyanogenMod team would do to make it an official build, although they would integrate the changes into the main source. The changes would mostly still be in a separate vendor tree in the repo. And it would be 'official'. From a practical/technical view, what workshed is doing is the same thing that the CM team would do.)
2) Porting an existing build to an unsupported device = taking an existing, already compiled ROM and making it work on said device (This is what tazz is doing with the Heroc build. This works out well when going from the Heroc.)
Anyone, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that I have that right.
The only downside that I see from either of these is MAYBE not getting quite the support that we would get if the Eris had an 'official' build. I really don't think it's affecting much of anything, IMHO. It might in the future as the Heroc and Eris become more and more dated devices. But then, many of you won't really care because you're kids will be using them as mp3 players anyway while you use your fancy, new quad core HTC Destroyer 6G. (What's a Beiber?)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I thought it was a girl
tazzpatriot said:
I thought it was a girl
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its a dude.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zb64y6Nvs0
refthemc said:
Its a dude.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zb64y6Nvs0
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
nope still a girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwIa2S0YQs4
FYI: http://twitter.com/cyanogen/status/45246447385452544
@cyanogen said:
@Algamer we don't officially support the eris, it would be nice if someone doing the porting joined up with us though
about 8 hours ago via web in reply to Algamerhttp://twitter.com/Algamer/status/45235578886815744http://twitter.com/Algamer/status/45235578886815744
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think OUR devs are doing just fine. Why change now?
wildstang83
wildstang83 said:
I think OUR devs are doing just fine. Why change now?
wildstang83
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Our devs are doing more than just fine, especially considering the amount of development we STILL have going on even though the Eris was a short-lived device that was EOL'd after like 8 months, was mid-range compared to the original Droid, and is a pretty niche device being MDPI on Verizon...
Why change now? That's a good question and I don't have a great answer. Like some have said on this post, maybe we'll get more support with bugs, etc. Additionally, a lot of the users here on XDA are looking for consistency. Since many who read and post here lack the skill set to do any meaningful ROM development themselves, they rely on the kindness of willing devs. However, devs will often add their own "personal touches" to their ROMs, which is great and well within their right to do. Having said that, many users are just looking to for something where they know, "Oh OK, so this is the base CM ROM that's officially distributed."
Personally, I don't care whether we have an "official" CM build or not for the Eris. I'm pretty reserved when it comes to ROMs for everyday use and am still using xtrSENSE as my default. The only reason I posted up cyanogen's recent tweet was to show that cyanogen himself is well-aware of the Eris development, is personally following the Eris ports, and is open to a partnership. My hope is that, by bridging communication, I am doing my part in helping to expose any possible mutual benefit (Eris XDA devs, ROM end-users, and Team Douche at CM) that could be gained by considering an "official" build. Ultimately, I understand that this is a decision that can only be made by the devs and also, not fulling understanding ROM development or having the skill set myself, I believe they are in the best position to make that decision. Like I said, I'm merely acting as a messenger, bringing this communication to light on our forum.
I finally decided to ask a question that's been bugging me for a few days now, with all android development going around in a very impressive pace.
Now I am completly new to kernel concept so don't me too harsh if I said something wrong.
The question: Isn't there really a way to modify/update our kernel since we have locked bootloader?
As far as I understood, most of us are running ICS UI on top of GB kernel (even some on top of Froyo kernel) but this does not give us the advantage of running ICS on it full force and take full advantage of your harware.
I know Endless7 had a method to downgrade kernel, and I thought may be there can be a similar way to upgrade it.
With JB just around the corner, that would be a great improvement IMHO for our device.
Megalith27 said:
I finally decided to ask a question that's been bugging me for a few days now, with all android development going around in a very impressive pace.
Now I am completly new to kernel concept so don't me too harsh if I said something wrong.
The question: Isn't there really a way to modify/update our kernel since we have locked bootloader?
As far as I understood, most of us are running ICS UI on top of GB kernel (even some on top of Froyo kernel) but this does not give us the advantage of running ICS on it full force and take full advantage of your harware.
I know Endless7 had a method to downgrade kernel, and I thought may be there can be a similar way to upgrade it.
With JB just around the corner, that would be a great improvement IMHO for our device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm no expert but I think this has to be done by motorola, since the kernel is the one responsible for the hardware management, and given the bootloader is locked we can't put custom kernels in our phone
Caesarivs said:
I'm no expert but I think this has to be done by motorola, since the kernel is the one responsible for the hardware management, and given the bootloader is locked we can't put custom kernels in our phone
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the reply. I do realize that and as Moto stated clearly that MS2 will not see official ICS there is not hope to get it from Moto.
But I thought maybe it can be ported from other device, or some modules, which share same CPU.
I am pretty sure our devs have looked into this but since we even got HWA working lol anything is possible these days.
There is a new bootloader hijacker called kexec which allows loading custom kernels. Hashcode is doing it for the Droid 3, and if I'm not wrong, it's designed specially for Motorola Phones with locked bootloaders. But you have to implement new drivers for video and such, so it's a lot of work.
Sent from my XT860 using xda app-developers app
elleypo Ière
Megalith27 said:
Thanks for the reply. I do realize that and as Moto stated clearly that MS2 will not see official ICS there is not hope to get it from Moto.
But I thought maybe it can be ported from other device, or some modules, which share same CPU.
I am pretty sure our devs have looked into this but since we even got HWA working lol anything is possible these days.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The problem is that it's not *only* a "same cpu" problem, it's the whole hardware solution.... camera, sound, gpu, and so on.
It's one of the reasons the dev on MS2 is so "slow", with the locked bootloader, non support from Motorola, the multiple versions (Droid2/Droid2 Global, MS2 EU/CH/NA and so on), getting the hardware to work (specially with newer android like ICS/JB is/was a pain, and most of the work was done "porting" those from the Defy/Atrix and so on who have, somewhat, partially the same hardware and can be adapted.
On top of that, changing the kernel as already said would mean to find a security flaw/hole in the bootloader that could be exploited for that.
(the downgrade solution was patched/fixed with the latest european, and now Latin America bootloader/kernel upgrades if i remember well, hence why most europeans who upgraded to the latest OTA don't really have a working CM7, since it requires to flash fixed sbf and other things to make it work (a patched recovery partition i think)).
But really, having the dev (forgot his name, danthingyabak ) getting full HW acceleration, and a working ICS port and pretty much everything working now, while LA and China starts getting remotely the same versions, we might see more develeoppement coming, since it's no longer "region specific" devs. Maybe even one day Droid 2/Droid 2 Global and MS will share the same developpements, who knows (or, maybe by Miracle, now that Google owns Motorola, maybe one day we will see unlocked bootloaders for all phone yeah i'm dreaming ).
What about us now?!
http://androidcommunity.com/motorola-finally-unlocking-bootloaders-for-real-this-time-20120726/
I hope it's true!
PS. But if it's not about us again, we hope that this method will work even be
xenusr said:
I hope it's true!
PS. But if it's not about us again, we hope that this method will work even be
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think that thing was just a false alarm...or early celebration...
Sent from my MotoA953
Looks like we're finally getting there
http://androidcommunity.com/motorol...live-finally-can-unlock-bootloaders-20120817/