Flyer port - Nook Color Q&A, Help & Troubleshooting

Was just wondering, since HTC has released the source for the Flyer would it now be possible for devs to port it to our little tablet that could?

+1
This is a fantastic idea if we can get some of these great developers to port this. I'd much rather have a Flyer rom than a MIUI rom which is just recently rolling out. I was considering getting one once they were available but heck you can't beat the NC in price plus it gives me something along with my HD2 to modify and keep my sanity lol...

Holy crap, didn't even know of it. Sounds great!

racks11479 said:
Holy crap, didn't even know of it. Sounds great!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Racks does this mean you'll give it a shot. I'm down to try but I'm not sure how compatible the kernel is and I really dread doing any kernel work.
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

I'm excited with just possibility, wish I had more experience to actually give porting this a go.

This helps a lot. I've been trying to port this recently, but It has been slow. This will help a lot! (Can't start today, got OS X Lion to install)

That is awesome to hear.

Racks,
This would be amazing if you could get ahold of this system dump( source codes) and create one of your amazing ROMs to run off The SD card this would be fantastic. You and all the developers are doing great things for all us NC owners. Thanks for all you do...

Before people actually get ANY hopes up..
All HTC has done, is release the KERNEL source code, not the OS source code. The kernel code is worthless, since the Flyer has completely different hardware from us. This is not the OS source, so we are still where we were before; stuck trying to port Sense binaries..

I see...thanks for the info Mr Madcat ... I'm still somewhat new for the roms. On the nook...been using different roms on my HD2 forever but am still a noob in the NC forum.

Divine_Madcat said:
Before people actually get ANY hopes up..
All HTC has done, is release the KERNEL source code, not the OS source code. The kernel code is worthless, since the Flyer has completely different hardware from us. This is not the OS source, so we are still where we were before; stuck trying to port Sense binaries..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
He's got a point. This isn't the Sense UI code, but it could help.

Boo I assumed it included os source.

I'd be pretty darn interested in that too...

Related

CyanogenMod 6.1 is on its way! And its easy to get on Captivate!

Sorry if this has already been posted.
I apologize for not keeping the site up to date, I’m a slacker We also had a database issue and lost the last post about 6.0′s release, if you were wondering why it went missing.
6.1 is the current work-in-progress and is coming together nicely. There’s a few new features like touch-to-focus in the camcorder, dismiss notifications by swiping, kernel updates for most devices, and improved performance. There will also be support for a few new devices- Acer Liquid, HTC Wildfire and Samsung Vibrant. My eye is also on the new HTC phones that are about to get released like the G2.
A lot of people ask me about adding support for their phone, but we can only support phones that we actually own. The CM team is always looking for new hackers to join up with us to add support for their favorite device. Get in touch with me if you’d like to help.
CyanogenMod is open source. The quality of code being added to CM has vastly improved because of the code review system that we’ve put in place, Gerrit. It’s the same system used by Google to manage the Android Open Source Project. It allows anyone to submit code to the project in a highly-visible way and gives us a way to examine and improve it before it’s actually merged. We want your code, so send us your patches. If there’s something you don’t like, change it.
Nightly builds of CM are always available if you’re brave and want to try out the latest code. If you’re running nightly builds, the best way to stay up to date on new changes is to follow @cmsrc on Twitter.
Our user base is approaching a quarter of a million users. This project has come a long way Thanks for all the support, we are only as strong as the community!
Source- Cyanogenmod.com
Porting a vibrant rom to the captivate is not hard
no wayyyy this is finally coming to our cappy, i'd be beyond happy
Hate to sound like a douche, but is there anything in there (besides maybe some of the features of CM6.1) that we havent known for a long time? No release date, we know thier working on it, and we know they are working with the vibrant.
Well if you look here it still shows as in progress for version 6.0...They have said in the past that the vibrant won't be supported till 6.1 and then someone will still have to port it to the captivate..
https://spreadsheets.google.com/lv?key=0Aledx886TFpZdHdwNzNKZzJLczJjTnA5ekFWRzNxX2c&hl=en&authkey=CNf7ie8G
So I don't think we will be seeing anything soon...
so, i'm sure everyone will get a good laugh, because everyone talks about how this is the best thing about to come since sliced bread........
but what is SO great about this?
buddy17 said:
so, i'm sure everyone will get a good laugh, because everyone talks about how this is the best thing about to come since sliced bread........
but what is SO great about this?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Froyo! Plus lots of custom stuff.
well i knew it was based on 2.2....but the "custom stuff" is what i meant. What are some of the big things it does that are so great
I'm new to the whole Android scene so excuse my ignorance but can someone explain how CM6.1 can possibly be put on a GalaxyS phone when there is no source code for the kernel?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using XDA App
sdotbrucato said:
I'm new to the whole Android scene so excuse my ignorance but can someone explain how CM6.1 can possibly be put on a GalaxyS phone when there is no source code for the kernel?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The other custom roms seem to use the 2.1 kernel.
I checked that spreadsheet about 3 weeks ago, and it was still in development like it is now for the vibrant.
buddy17 said:
well i knew it was based on 2.2....but the "custom stuff" is what i meant. What are some of the big things it does that are so great
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its not really about a wealth of extra features. Cyanogenmod has extra configurability. In addition it is a bit more cohesive than typical roms. I definitely preferred it over the stock Nexus One rom and the stock nexus one rom is better than stock Captivate.
The rapid updates and support is enough for me to use Cyanogenmod.
z28james said:
The other custom roms seem to use the 2.1 kernel.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But 6.1 is Froyo, all the ROMs I've seen are Eclaire... How are they using a 2.1 kernel with Froyo?
I was under the impression the reason for no Froyo ROMs on the Captivate was due to lack of source from Samsung?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using XDA App
Who needs this when we have cognition?!
designgears said:
Who needs this when we have cognition?!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
exactly
designgears said:
Who needs this when we have cognition?!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i'm sure when this comes out you'll be able to strip the FroYo out of it and make it your own, and better
CM6.1 will come to the captivate after is released to the vibrant, kernel differences are minimal between the two so porting CM6.1 to the captivate will only require few kernel changes.
yeah i'm sure the port will be done in the time it takes to heat up a pop tart.
designgears said:
Who needs this when we have cognition?!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1 Finally got my Cappy right where I want it. CM is awesome, I'm just tired of all the hype, not to mention the waiting for this stuff to happen.
designgears said:
Who needs this when we have cognition?!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Everyone who is waiting to use Voice Actions, Chrome-to-phone, and any other cool 2.2-only apps.
Yeah, like real Flash or having the speed boost of the JIT compiler.

Why the epic 4g CyanogenMod port is not backed by the CM team my opinion.

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.

[Q] Gingerbread Source (Glitch fix)??

http://htcdev.com/
What does this mean for us HD2 users?
It means we might have to wait a bit longer for the actual source to come available.. But there might be some interesting things in this ROM. We will know shortly
Sorry to keep asking questions, but what source is needed? I see the source for the GB kernels for various phones - what exactly is missing?
Just trying to understand better.
MikeG4936 said:
Sorry to keep asking questions, but what source is needed? I see the source for the GB kernels for various phones - what exactly is missing?
Just trying to understand better.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Asking questions is never wrong .. The source files contain drivers for the different phones, which is why they are all released seperately. Every device has different hardware, and the Desire has the closest resemblence to the hardware found in our HD2. This is also why many think the Desire source will really help in the development of Gingerbread ROM versions on the HD2 (like it did before on the previous Android releases, for example the camera).
What has been released on HTCdev.com (if I understand correctly), is the ROM upgrade itself, and not the actual kernel source. It may seem weird, because it is the only 'official' ROM upgrade that has been put up on HTCdev.com yet. They are not releasing it OTA (over the air) to all Desires, so they had to put it somewhere easy to be found by devs. This is why it has been put up on that page, which might have been confusing (because many would think it actually is the kernel source). As far as I can see, the package only contains the upgrade itself and 2 APK's. Usually it takes a while longer for this to become available, but per Linux license they are obliged to release it. Eventually.
I think there will be some interesting APK's in this ROM nevertheless.. We'll just have to wait until someone (one of the dev's) has explored the ROM thoroughly.
but it can't be to long from now till the sources are released.
BLAST3RR said:
Asking questions is never wrong .. The source files contain drivers for the different phones, which is why they are all released seperately. Every device has different hardware, and the Desire has the closest resemblence to the hardware found in our HD2. This is also why many think the Desire source will really help in the development of Gingerbread ROM versions on the HD2 (like it did before on the previous Android releases, for example the camera).
What has been released on HTCdev.com (if I understand correctly), is the ROM upgrade itself, and not the actual kernel source. It may seem weird, because it is the only 'official' ROM upgrade that has been put up on HTCdev.com yet. They are not releasing it OTA (over the air) to all Desires, so they had to put it somewhere easy to be found by devs. This is why it has been put up on that page, which might have been confusing (because many would think it actually is the kernel sournce). As far as I can see, the package only contains the upgrade itself and 2 APK's. Usually it takes a while longer for this to become available, but per Linux license they are obliged to release it. Eventually.
I think there will be some interesting APK's in this ROM nevertheless.. We'll just have to wait until someone (one of the dev's) has explored the ROM thoroughly.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Excellente. Couldn't have said it better. The update's been out for almost a week. And from videos that I've seen, HTC did not upgrade the Sense version to 2.1 or 2.0 for the matter.
But of course all we need is the kernel source.
I'd also like to ask any of the devs:
Will a new kernel need to be compiled when the Desire gingerbread source is released? Hint hint: Rafpigna 2.1?
Also, I'm not familiar with the OC deal, but is it possible to overclock over 1.5 ghz on our HD2? I've seen 1.9 ghz on Desire Z/G2, and almost 1.8 ghz on the DHD.
BLAST3RR said:
Every device has different hardware, and the Desire has the closest resemblence to the hardware found in our HD2. This is also why many think the Desire source will really help in the development of Gingerbread ROM versions on the HD2 (like it did before on the previous Android releases, for example the camera).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Does this mean that the the HD2 is on it's "last breath" with Android? Since the Desire isn't getting updated past Gingerbread...
What about Nexus One then? It is pretty much a redesigned Desire.
Or is this necessary for Sense ROMs only, and AOSP ROMs will still work?
Wouldn't it be possible to port something like Leedroid HD then? Since it's on the Desire and it works perfectly..
SilverHedgehog said:
Does this mean that the the HD2 is on it's "last breath" with Android? Since the Desire isn't getting updated past Gingerbread...
What about Nexus One then? It is pretty much a redesigned Desire.
Or is this necessary for Sense ROMs only, and AOSP ROMs will still work?
Wouldn't it be possible to port something like Leedroid HD then? Since it's on the Desire and it works perfectly..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
With Sense builds it is the end of the road I guess.. At least for any Android releases after Gingerbread. With the other builds I am not sure.. We have quite some driver source available, and with that we can probably simply compile them on the newer AOSP and non-sense ROMS. Sense is really a problem when it comes to source, because it is proprietary software written by HTC (no full source for Sense to simply cross-compile their libs). This is also why it is so hard to make decent Sense-builds whenever a new major Android release comes out. I could be wrong here though.
Let's wait for a dev to come over and shed some light ..
Grr... It's a bad day to own both the Desire and the HD2.
SilverHedgehog said:
Grr... It's a bad day to own both the Desire and the HD2.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True.. But I for one never could have dreamed my HD2 to be top-notch more than a year later.. It certainly was one of my best buys ever. Imagine life when we'd still be stuck on that creepy WM6.5
BLAST3RR said:
True.. But I for one never could have dreamed my HD2 to be top-notch more than a year later.. It certainly was one of my best buys ever. Imagine life when we'd still be stuck on that creepy WM6.5
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Haha, that's true, I guess... I never even got to touch WM6.5 on my HD2, I bought it from Ebay with WP7. Tried it and didn't like it that much. So now I'm wondering which phone should be my primary, HD2 or Desire..
BLAST3RR said:
With Sense builds it is the end of the road I guess.. At least for any Android releases after Gingerbread. With the other builds I am not sure.. We have quite some driver source available, and with that we can probably simply compile them on the newer AOSP and non-sense ROMS. Sense is really a problem when it comes to source, because it is proprietary software written by HTC (no full source for Sense to simply cross-compile their libs). This is also why it is so hard to make decent Sense-builds whenever a new major Android release comes out. I could be wrong here though.
Let's wait for a dev to come over and shed some light ..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm confused - why would the HD2 be on it's last legs?
People are still developing ROMs for my G1 - hell, there's even a honeycomb rom for my G1. Until people quit developing for the HD2, I guarantee it will be on par with other devices.
captainreynolds said:
I'm confused - why would the HD2 be on it's last legs?
People are still developing ROMs for my G1 - hell, there's even a honeycomb rom for my G1. Until people quit developing for the HD2, I guarantee it will be on par with other devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's just the Sense development that will be near to impossible to be perfect.. The rest will be continued as long as there are developers interested in our HD2.
captainreynolds said:
I'm confused - why would the HD2 be on it's last legs?
People are still developing ROMs for my G1 - hell, there's even a honeycomb rom for my G1. Until people quit developing for the HD2, I guarantee it will be on par with other devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The hd2 development won't die, merely the Sense ROM development unless HTC make an ice cream sandwich update for the Desire (which is unlikely but possible as Google have stated ics has been designed to work on all Android devices to date). AOSP ROMs will probably continue as long as the device stays popular.
Sent from my HTC HD2 überphone
I just went on this sure cause I got an email from htc saying the site launched. Now I know we need the kernel source, but I just noticed this in the kernel source page:
Android 2.3 (Gingerbread) Upgrade for HTC Desire
Or is that not enough?
Sent from my HD2 using XDA App

[Q] Honeycomb on KF? Vs ICS

Ahoy mateys. I've been a longtime Android user (October 2009) and have never been much for running the stock OS on my devices.
Currently I've been running CM7 and loving it on the KF. Been keeping tabs on the ICS port over, just waiting for the sound issues to be hammered out as I use the device mostly for watching videos via RockPlayer.
Lately I've been thinking about trying to port over Honeycomb to the KF, as it might be simpler given that it's been around longer. I know that it's somewhat futile given the state of the 3.0 kernel being needed for HW acceleration. But it seems like it could be worthwhile just to test it and see what might happen. Give it more tablety goodness if anything!
I'm a programmer by trade and am majoring in CS. Not much dev experience on Android aside from writing games. But I've built Gentoo for my machines, so I've got some kernel knowledge. What do you guys think?
Regards,
-Free
P.S. I don't have 10 posts so this is in General.
freeqaz said:
Ahoy mateys. I've been a longtime Android user (October 2009) and have never been much for running the stock OS on my devices.
Currently I've been running CM7 and loving it on the KF. Been keeping tabs on the ICS port over, just waiting for the sound issues to be hammered out as I use the device mostly for watching videos via RockPlayer.
Lately I've been thinking about trying to port over Honeycomb to the KF, as it might be simpler given that it's been around longer. I know that it's somewhat futile given the state of the 3.0 kernel being needed for HW acceleration. But it seems like it could be worthwhile just to test it and see what might happen. Give it more tablety goodness if anything!
I'm a programmer by trade and am majoring in CS. Not much dev experience on Android aside from writing games. But I've built Gentoo for my machines, so I've got some kernel knowledge. What do you guys think?
Regards,
-Free
P.S. I don't have 10 posts so this is in General.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Personally, I think it's a good idea, and that you should do it. You'll probably get a lot of people saying there's no point cause ICS is what honeycomb should've been. I've never used honeycomb before, so I don't know how different it is from ICS but I'm sure there are some.
I think you should do it to give this device and its users another ROM choice, with a different android version. Or even just for the fact that you might want to use it, do it for yourself and post it here just to see if people want it. I'd try it out, even if ICS is out and stable haha
Sent from my HTC Glacier using Tapatalk
Personally, I think it's a good idea, .... I've never used honeycomb before...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Huh?
Why would you encourage someone to work on something when you yourself don't know what the differences are between them??
ICS is Honeycomb just taking to what was its planned completion. With many Honeycomb devices moving to ICS I don't see the point.
That would be doing a lot of work, just to end up with an in between OS with all the new support going to ICS which is what everyone that can get it wants.
Also, for someone with no Android programming experience, you most likely would be a lot better of working with apps before tackling a whole OS.
krelvinaz said:
Huh?
Why would you encourage someone to work on something when you yourself don't know what the differences are between them??
ICS is Honeycomb just taking to what was its planned completion. With many Honeycomb devices moving to ICS I don't see the point.
That would be doing a lot of work, just to end up with an in between OS with all the new support going to ICS which is what everyone that can get it wants.
Also, for someone with no Android programming experience, you most likely would be a lot better of working with apps before tackling a whole OS.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'd like to check it out. It's not like I'm telling him that he needs to do this, he asked what people thought of the idea because he was interested in doing it, and I voiced my opinion.
Though I do agree that it might be easier to work with apps and then maybe work on a ROM, but hey, if he's willing to attempt it and learn how everything works, why stop him? The more devs, the merrier lol
Isn't the problem with porting honeycomb is that it was never truly open source?
My understanding is there was never a source release for honeycomb
Sent from my SPH-D700 using xda premium
[email protected] said:
Isn't the problem with porting honeycomb is that it was never truly open source?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yea, that is, AFAIK, why there was never a CM8. I don't think it would be worth OP's time to try to reverse-engineer a Honeycomb tablet and shoehorning it into the KF.
However, the OP might want to donate some of their time to the ICS port
It is open source after all...
[email protected] said:
Isn't the problem with porting honeycomb is that it was never truly open source?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I believe Google released the source for Honeycomb when they released the source for ICS
Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk
Hit up this Google announcement, they did indeed release the source.
This release includes the full history of the Android source code
tree, which naturally includes all the source code for the Honeycomb
releases. However, since Honeycomb was a little incomplete, we want
everyone to focus on Ice Cream Sandwich. So, we haven't created any
tags that correspond to the Honeycomb releases (even though the
changes are present in the history.)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
groups.google dot com/forum/#!topic/android-building/T4XZJCZnqF8
The only thing that I really want to know is if there is a significant driver difference between ICS and Honeycomb. If there is, then there is a reason to try to port 3.0 over because it would have more driver support. There are 3.0 devices out in the wild. If there isn't a driver difference between 3.0 and 4.0, then it's futile and all efforts should be spent on 4.0.
theholyfork said:
I believe Google released the source for Honeycomb when they released the source for ICS
Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Indeed.
And when they released the source for ICS, they elaborated on why they included Honeycomb in the Source tree: To essentially display the hacks they were forced to use to push Honeycomb to market. Honeycomb was never AOSP'd because it wasn't reliable for wider use.
Based upon the fact that Google was basically too ashamed to release Honeycomb to AOSP, I don't think it would make much sense to target a broken platform (Honeycomb).
IMO, if you're going to spend time trying to work on getting a more tablet-oriented version of Android running, it's probably going to be *easier* to work with ICS than Honeycomb. Moreover your contributions could assist the greater KF community in getting a stable base of ICS for all.

BeanStalk port worked! Waiting for Scott's permission to post in dev section

I used this rom on my Samsung infuse and it would be awesome if a dev could port it to the s4!
If you look on the original thread in the infuse forums you can see step by step instructions on how to port it.
I tries to do it, but don't know how to do step 6.
It turns out I was able to do it on my own!
chrisc93 said:
I used this rom on my Samsung infuse and it would be awesome if a dev could port it to the s4!
If you look on the original thread in the infuse forums you can see step by step instructions on how to port it.
I tries to do it, but don't know how to do step 6.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That rom is AOSP-based. So why don't you just try one of the other AOSP-based roms around here, such as AOKP or SlimBean?
mattdm said:
That rom is AOSP-based. So why don't you just try one of the other AOSP-based roms around here, such as AOKP or SlimBean?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am currently running Task's AOKP and it is really nice (i found it better than Slim on the s4), but BeanStalk has more features.
I was just wondering if it would be possible to get BeanStalk ported.
Thanks for the reply!
chrisc93 said:
I am currently running Task's AOKP and it is really nice (i found it better than Slim on the s4), but BeanStalk has more features.
I was just wondering if it would be possible to get BeanStalk ported.
Thanks for the reply!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's not really easy whatsoever to port a Rom that is for a different device especially if the resolution is different for the other Phone.
Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2
I am unfamiliar with porting, so it is good to know it's not an easy task.
Thanks for your answer!
jetlitheone said:
It's not really easy whatsoever to port a Rom that is for a different device especially if the resolution is different for the other Phone.
Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's where source comes in handy...it eliminates a lot of those issues, really all we need is xxhdpi (we should be able to cherrypick that from cm when needed) to be added into aosp and then source porting should be a breeze for the most part - if you know how to build from source that is...actually building a custom aosp rom like scotts, that's a different story
Zip porting is where resolution and all that stuff makes it hard/not possible
Just look at cm...its available on nearly every device...why? Because its got its source up. Basically all you need to do is add in all the correct hardware source, kernel sources, device sources and proprietary files and your good...not saying its easy, as you do need to figure out what you need to add in, as well as edit a few files...but its definitely not really hard (although some of those errors you run into do make you want to throw your computer out a window)
-I guess it is a little hard, but for the most part its pretty much the same for any source port...trial and error your way through errors until it builds
Anyways, I'm sure someone will get around to it...I was gonna try and compile pure aosp...but my dev environment needs to be updated before I can start compiling again (been months since I compiled anything)
If it can be ported to the galaxy s3, than it can be ported to the galaxy s4 (I'm not saying the two are similar, but both are completely different from the Samsung infuse)
Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2
mg2195 said:
That's where source comes in handy...it eliminates a lot of those issues, really all we need is xxhdpi (we should be able to cherrypick that from cm when needed) to be added into aosp and then source porting should be a breeze for the most part - if you know how to build from source that is...actually building a custom aosp rom like scotts, that's a different story
Zip porting is where resolution and all that stuff makes it hard/not possible
Just look at cm...its available on nearly every device...why? Because its got its source up. Basically all you need to do is add in all the correct hardware source, kernel sources, device sources and proprietary files and your good...not saying its easy, as you do need to figure out what you need to add in, as well as edit a few files...but its definitely not really hard (although some of those errors you run into do make you want to throw your computer out a window)
-I guess it is a little hard, but for the most part its pretty much the same for any source port...trial and error your way through errors until it builds
Anyways, I'm sure someone will get around to it...I was gonna try and compile pure aosp...but my dev environment needs to be updated before I can start compiling again (been months since I compiled anything)
If it can be ported to the galaxy s3, than it can be ported to the galaxy s4 (I'm not saying the two are similar, but both are completely different from the Samsung infuse)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow this was some great info!
I've never built from source, but I'm going to give it a try with TMO's cm 10 for the s4. Just to get a grip on dev'ing.
Thanks.
EDIT: Actually, it looks like cyanogenmod has the galaxy s4 AT&T github repo up to date. I may just try to build using that source.
chrisc93 said:
Wow this was some great info!
I've never built from source, but I'm going to give it a try with TMO's cm 10 for the s4. Just to get a grip on dev'ing.
Thanks.
EDIT: Actually, it looks like cyanogenmod has the galaxy s4 AT&T github repo up to date. I may just try to build using that source.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Please keep in mind, in order to build from source you must have linux...actually I think Mac works too...but windows won't
Follow the link in my signature, its full of a bunch of tutorials, somewhere close to the top should be a thread called compile jb from ubuntu or something like that...follow that thread to get you started and get you build environment set up
-it is very confusing at first especially if your new to linux, bit once you get going it gets easier
Anyways, good luck!!! The great thing about porting from source is it gets your feet wet, gets you used to the basics with source...and eventually you can get experimental and start creating your own source roms...also, it is kinda addicting lol, for a while I was compiling non stop...I went from a flashaholic to a compileaholic lol...now, I'm neither due to my busy schedule but summer is just around the corner for me so that should change
Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2
mg2195 said:
Anyways, good luck!!! The great thing about porting from source is it gets your feet wet, gets you used to the basics with source...and eventually you can get experimental and start creating your own source roms...also, it is kinda addicting lol, for a while I was compiling non stop...I went from a flashaholic to a compileaholic lol...now, I'm neither due to my busy schedule but summer is just around the corner for me so that should change
Sent from my HTC PH39100 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks! I'm looking forward to the challenge! Who knows, maybe I'll become a compileaholic too :laugh::laugh:
There is a build for the gs2 skyrocket here
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2249072
Not sure if that helps at all...
Sent from my AT&T Galaxy S4 Running AOKP 4.2.2
Just wanted to check in and let you all know that I successfully built cm10 for the galaxy s4! Used the source from the official branch. It's a pretty neat feeling knowing that I built the rom from source (and it's really neat seeing my name in the build date ) :victory:
I'm going to be contacting scott to see if he can help me build his rom. I already synced his repo on my computer, so I'm hoping the rest won't be too hard. :fingers-crossed:
Thanks @mg2195 for the help! :highfive:
I did it!
I am running the latest version of BeanStalk on my s4!!!!
I will make a new thread in the dev section as soon as I get permission. This rom is awesome!
:victory:
Felt like this deserved some attention
As johnny drama would say.... VICTORYYYYYY!!
Sent from my GT-I9505 using xda premium
I'm am on my infuse ATM and am running Beanstalk. My S4 is on the fedex truck on the route to my house and I'm super excited and pumped to see this may be coming to the S4 if it does I may just keep my phone
Sent from my SGH-I997 using xda premium

Categories

Resources