Database Users

[Q] Adding Eris to CyanogenMod Supported Devices?

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.

[CRAZYTHEORY] Joint HC Developement?

Hello there,
I have this theory... I want to hear your opinions to see if I'm just crazy or I'm correct in thinking this.
After seeing how the unmodified Acer Iconia Galaxy ROM + modified ASUS Transformer kernel (Clemsyn's) worked on a Transformer I started to think that this could be because of all the Honeycomb tablets are running a pretty similar OS configuration ("stock-like" Honeycomb).
Am I right in thinking this (I haven't actually used any other HC tablet except the Iconia)?
If this is right, it kind of explains why an unmodified ROM developed for the Iconia works with our device, as they are using pretty similar systems. The main difference, of course, is the hardware. This explains the wifi, battery and other issues in this example. This was partly corrected from the use of an ASUS TF kernel (Clemsyns) with the same ROM since the kernel provides the needed interfaces, modules, whatever for the respective hardware.
Of course, the kernels between the devices, I'm assuming as I haven't actually compared the source, are pretty similar aside from certain hardware modules that have been left out during compilation, as they are both just modified Linux kernel. This explains why the Iconia ROM worked (mostly) even when using an Iconia kernel.
So am I right with all the above, or am I missing something obvious, or am I just crazy (2am and my PC's made my room very hot afterall)?
Okay, so if the above is correct, couldn't/shouldn't we be doing some cooperative developement with other Honeycomb device developers? Or at least the Iconia developers, as I'm not sure about other devices. I mean, if the ROMs are pretty much compatible, all that would need to be done is have a respective kernel for the respective device flashed on-top of the ROM, right?
Anyway, laugh at me, flame me, tell me to go to bed, whatever, but I'd like to know what your thoughts are.
And on a related note:
Has anyone actually tried flashing any other "other-device ROMs" onto a TF with a TF kernel and got it working?
I'd love to try, but my internet is terrible... I swear someone else on the network constantly has their BT speeds uncapped 24/7 (share-house's are ****ty).

I think that's pretty much the goal of the CyanogenMod project. Only reason they haven't begun on a Honeycomb version is because Google never released the AOSP. Hopefully this will change with ICS.

Yes, the OEMs are working together with google behind the scenes.
More than likely Google has "forced" them to contribute code in order to participate and enjoy early code.
Unified code at the OS level would be a godsend and allow for Windows - style updates.

poltak11 said:
After seeing how the unmodified Acer Iconia Galaxy ROM + modified ASUS Transformer kernel (Clemsyn's) worked on a Transformer I started to think that this could be because of all the Honeycomb tablets are running a pretty similar OS configuration ("stock-like" Honeycomb).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As far as I'm aware, pretty much all the current crop of Honeycomb tablets are all based on the Nvidia Ventana reference platform, so it's not too surprising that they are all very, very, similar software-wise.
Regards,
Dave

JCopernicus said:
Yes, the OEMs are working together with google behind the scenes.
More than likely Google has "forced" them to contribute code in order to participate and enjoy early code.
Unified code at the OS level would be a godsend and allow for Windows - style updates.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But as the OEMs are working together, why aren't independant developers here on xda? I mean, I'm just thinking that a lot more nice work would get done if there was unified developement going on between the HC devices instead of seperate forums, and seperate ROMs that seem to be very similar.
And yes, I do agree about the closed source problem. But Google said this is just a temporary thing, right?

It's hard to write too much code when you don't have the original to start with.
No one really wants to write Honeycomb from scratch.
sassafras

sassafras_ said:
It's hard to write too much code when you don't have the original to start with.
No one really wants to write Honeycomb from scratch.
sassafras
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I understand this, of course, but excuse my ignorance when it comes to Android Developement, but what are the developers of PRIME and Clemsyn's ROM and all the other HC ROMs working with at the moment, as there is no source other than the GPL'd kernel?

poltak11 said:
I understand this, of course, but excuse my ignorance when it comes to Android Developement, but what are the developers of PRIME and Clemsyn's ROM and all the other HC ROMs working with at the moment, as there is no source other than the GPL'd kernel?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They are working with the OTA. It is all compiled things. They can add things on top of it, but they can't do modifications to it because its already compiled (source code not provided).

zephiK said:
They are working with the OTA. It is all compiled things. They can add things on top of it, but they can't do modifications to it because its already compiled (source code not provided).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ah, fair enough. Well assuming that Google actually does release the source-code sometime, will this sort of thing be happening? As in co-developement between devices?
It just seems like the sensible thing to be happening, as opposed to a greatly splintered "fork" style of developement.

poltak11 said:
Ah, fair enough. Well assuming that Google actually does release the source-code sometime, will this sort of thing be happening? As in co-developement between devices?
It just seems like the sensible thing to be happening, as opposed to a greatly splintered "fork" style of developement.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Chances are there will be a CyanogenMod type project once Android tablet sources are released.
However, there will always be developers who are primarily interested in doing their own thing, which is perfectly acceptable too.
Regards,
Dave

poltak11 said:
Ah, fair enough. Well assuming that Google actually does release the source-code sometime, will this sort of thing be happening? As in co-developement between devices?
It just seems like the sensible thing to be happening, as opposed to a greatly splintered "fork" style of developement.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's a reason CM hasn't officially touched any Honeycomb tablet. There's no source. Once they open up the source with ICS then everyone will be working on it through github.

[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.

CM9 News from CyanogenMod Google+

Last night, +Steve Kondik took to twitter to vent a little bit:
"CM has been getting a lot of crap lately for taking so long with a release. Guess what? It's not that easy. We don't just call something stable unless we mean it. *Also, RC1 is soon!* The most stable devices will get the RC first. The system we've put in place should allow other devices to catch up quickly. More details later this week "
Now to combat the obvious questions:
# As Steve stated, this will not be for all CM9 supported devices. The Nexus S and Galaxy Nexus can be considered safe bets, but the final list won't be available until release day.
# As always, the proper day of release is difficult/impossible to predict, but we anticipate a code freeze going in place tomorrow at the earliest.
# Yes, this means we will actively be running two separate RC phases (CM7 and CM9). Bug's should be reported to the issue tracker once the release is made, not in the comments on our posts.
# There has been a lot of talk surrounding Linaro in CM. While CM 9.0 won't ship with all the patches on gerrit, quite a few of them are already incorporated and others are sane enough that they will likely be there. There are still some issues surrounding the updated gcc used for the Linaro patches that don't play nice with AOSP.
# Nexus One: For the time being, the N1 will not be supported. We can get it to build/boot/run, but the hacks required break Google's CTS, so until that is rectified, you won't see any build with CM's official stamp of approval.

CM9 News
And from a followup a few hours later:
******
+Ricardo Cerqueira sat down with XDA recently for a developer interview
To piggy back on our comment about the N1 and CTS, Ricardo describes why we don't just shrug off that requirement.
Because it opened a can of worms that can’t be closed again. Getting it to work needed some very ugly workarounds that directly go against Google’s compatibility document for ICS. An app developer targeting ICS as a minimal version for his apps has the right to expect some functionality to be guaranteed on a device that claims to be ICS, that wasn’t (and isn’t) true for ICS builds with these hacks. That’s one the main reasons CM9 does not officially include a bunch of devices that are “working.”
...and some users understand that, but a lot don’t, and they’ll submit error reports on those apps, or they’ll rate it badly at the Play store. This is not a hypothetical scenario, it has happened whether we like it or not, asked for it or not, CM’s userbase is large enough to matter, even if you don’t count derivatives. We have a responsibility not to cause that kind of grief to app developers and we did. With all the mostly bull**** talk about fragmentation, we actively contributed to a break in the platform, no matter how small. That’s not a good thing :X People SHOULD know these builds contain hacks, but you’ve surely realized by now that they don’t
******

dookie23 said:
....so until that is rectified, you won't see any build with CM's official stamp of approval.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
so.... is that ever gonna get rectified

charlie_su1986 said:
so.... is that ever gonna get rectified
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wonder what are the hacks he mentioned in the post. Was it the hboot hack, m2sd hack or swap partition...etc?

what is all the fuss about CM9 not releasing a rom officially when we have quite a few talented devs that have already given us the choice of running a near perfect ICS Rom on our nexus one?
EDIT: BCM offers CM9 features, AOKP offers us users the choice of AOKP features and texasice rom has a twist of its own features to. I do not see a problem with CM not releasing an official rom

Kannibalism said:
what is all the fuss about CM9 not releasing a rom officially when we have quite a few talented devs that have already given us the choice of running a near perfect ICS Rom on our nexus one?
EDIT: BCM offers CM9 features, AOKP offers us users the choice of AOKP features and texasice rom has a twist of its own features to. I do not see a problem with CM not releasing an official rom
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Don't get me wrong, I love seeing the talented devs make awesome progress on kang'ing CM9 and things are coming together nicely. What I am getting at is not whether Cyanogenmod is releasing a CM9 rom officially for the Nexus One, but it's what Ricardo Cerqueira said about the hacks breaking Google CTS. This could mean that apps might not run or worse yet, FC's for no reason.
Now, the real questions are, what are these hacks Ricardo was talking about and is that gonna get rectified?

the hacks they talk about could be small stuff like ta camera fix etc since vendors do not always release new drivers.I would say that the nexus one is using a few hacks for drivers in order to make everything work better

I suspect it's a combination, both messing with HBOOT partition sizes (which is not a *bad* thing, but involves a lot more risk than just flashing a new ROM) and the nasty driver hacks that the poor dev's have had to do to try to working around the lack of a Broadcom driver, since they saw fit to release neither a driver nor sufficient documentation. It's hard to see how either could be overcome for an "official" CM9 release. I feel like it's a bit of a chicken and egg problem; with sufficient dev attention things could probably be brought into acceptable shape, but unofficial ports will never have sufficient dev attention.
Disclaimer: I really appreciate all the work that's been done by everyone on all the community ROMs. It's a hard, often thankless job, whether you're debugging mystery driver issues on an older phone or trying to coordinate a release for dozens of different devices with angry, impatient fans. While I'd love to have an official, flawless ICS ROM, at least we get more love from the community than we did from Google

decoherent said:
I suspect it's a combination, both messing with HBOOT partition sizes (which is not a *bad* thing, but involves a lot more risk than just flashing a new ROM) and the nasty driver hacks that the poor dev's have had to do to try to working around the lack of a Broadcom driver, since they saw fit to release neither a driver nor sufficient documentation. It's hard to see how either could be overcome for an "official" CM9 release. I feel like it's a bit of a chicken and egg problem; with sufficient dev attention things could probably be brought into acceptable shape, but unofficial ports will never have sufficient dev attention.
Disclaimer: I really appreciate all the work that's been done by everyone on all the community ROMs. It's a hard, often thankless job, whether you're debugging mystery driver issues on an older phone or trying to coordinate a release for dozens of different devices with angry, impatient fans. While I'd love to have an official, flawless ICS ROM, at least we get more love from the community than we did from Google
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree with this post i would put the blame on google for not pushing the vendors for the broadcom drivers since android is open source after all but once again great works by our devs and thanks for letting us experience the latest versions of android on our devices
EDIT: i must admit that i have better devices to use than the nexus one but the community keeps me coming back for more
Sent from my Nexus One using xda premium

Aosp project by Sony

Great news sony is just like xperia s working on aosp project
http://developer.sonymobile.com/201...r-xperia-z-on-sonys-github-open-source-video/
This would definitely help us!

Yep. Some of the devs doing apps and kernels for the device would probably be helped even more than us, and if they send fixes to the repo Sony could be helped as well.
Open source. It works, *****es!

Hey guys, as you have some knowledge that I don't, can someone explain me something...
The official AOSP from Sony seems to lack from some important drivers (camera and modem) because they are closed source.
I totally understand and that's not a problem for me.
What I don't understand is why CyanogenMod team has some open source drivers.. is that because they reverse engineered some stuff that Sony is not allowed to?
I really do not understand the difference between these two projects.

As I understand it, CM usually uses proprietary blobs (binaries) extracted from the device they are building for, rather than open source alternatives coded by the community.
AOSP aims to use all open source code.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong
Sent from my C6603 using Tapatalk 2

Hi Entropy, could you help answer a question that was brought up in another thread while were on this AOSP topic. I'm curious to your thoughts on this.
profete162 said:
The official AOSP from Sony seems to lack from some important drivers (camera and modem) because they are closed source.
I totally understand and that's not a problem for me.
What I don't understand is why CyanogenMod team has some open source drivers.. is that because they reverse engineered some stuff that Sony is not allowed to?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sent from my C6603 using Tapatalk 2

AOSP is pure open source, but to get that source running on any given phone you're almost guaranteed to have to use closed source blobs due to licensing. This is not a bad thing, and on the github site sony even gives a download link to all the blobs so you can use them

Entropy, while were on this topic,could you enlighten us for this question that was brought up in another thread.
profete162 said:
The official AOSP from Sony seems to lack from some important drivers (camera and modem) because they are closed source.
I totally understand and that's not a problem for me.
What I don't understand is why CyanogenMod team has some open source drivers.. is that because they reverse engineered some stuff that Sony is not allowed to?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sent from my C6603 using Tapatalk 2

Perfectly clear and nice answer, thanks.
Tom Fagerland said:
AOSP is pure open source, but to get that source running on any given phone you're almost guaranteed to have to use closed source blobs due to licensing. This is not a bad thing, and on the github site sony even gives a download link to all the blobs so you can use them
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

profete162 said:
Hey guys, as you have some knowledge that I don't, can someone explain me something...
The official AOSP from Sony seems to lack from some important drivers (camera and modem) because they are closed source.
I totally understand and that's not a problem for me.
What I don't understand is why CyanogenMod team has some open source drivers.. is that because they reverse engineered some stuff that Sony is not allowed to?
I really do not understand the difference between these two projects.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In some cases, our handling of blobs is a pretty serious grey area. That is, for example, why our official build instructions use the extract-files approach. Also, why our blob repos used for builds are maintained separately from our main source repos.
That reminds me, I need to look through the manuals/stock software for my device to see what sorts of legal terminology there is - e.g. what is actually said about the blobs in about->legal.
In some cases (such as modem and camera), the OEM has weirdo restrictions in terms of permission to release binaries. Qualcomm has some especially arcane rules for some items (mostly modem-related).
Also, in the case of AOSP master, blobs must be compatible with the current codebase - as a result, some of our backwards-compatibility hacks to work with released blobs aren't valid for "official upstream" AOSP.

If I am not completely stupid and understood previous post, can we summarize like this:
1) "drivers" for camera and modem are proprietary compiled files on the device that nobody can edit
2) Sony has the right to include these files on a Sony Rom (I guess they paid for these files?)
3) Sony cannot include these files on other Rom than the one shipped with the device, like an AOSP ROM. (even as a separate package?)
4) Cyanogen include these files on CMxx but (is? // is not?) allowed to
Is that right?

does AOSP mean turning the Z into a nexus phone basically? Sorry I am still new to the Android thing. What does this mean for update? Do we get it as soon as Google release a new one?

Gitaroo said:
does AOSP mean turning the Z into a nexus phone basically? Sorry I am still new to the Android thing. What does this mean for update? Do we get it as soon as Google release a new one?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Will still require time to adapt it. But it'easier for the community devs and chances to get it are much higher than on other phones.
Sent Form my CM powered Sony Xperia Z.

It reminds me the Xperia S AOSP thread, lots of hope when they annouced it, but unable to provide a stock rom update to 4.1.2 ! Last one is from september and it's 4.0.4...

babylonbwoy said:
It reminds me the Xperia S AOSP thread, lots of hope when they annouced it, but unable to provide a stock rom update to 4.1.2 ! Last one is from september and it's 4.0.4...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
All Snapdragon S3 (Scorpion) devices are in the same boat there. Samsung Scorpions just saw 4.1 only in the last week or so.

I hope they can retain Bravia engine!

I'm dowloading the source code now, let's see what I can do
Sent from my C6603 using xda app-developers app

Tom Fagerland said:
AOSP is pure open source, but to get that source running on any given phone you're almost guaranteed to have to use closed source blobs due to licensing. This is not a bad thing, and on the github site sony even gives a download link to all the blobs so you can use them
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
https://developers.google.com/android/nexus/drivers
then what are these binaries for Nexus devices?
Do devs use those closed-source binaries for building AOSP for nexus devices? (and difference is that Google obtained permissions from everyone to release the binaries?

I was about to create a thread to share the news hehe
http://developer.sonymobile.com/201...or-xperia-z-on-sonys-github-open-source-video
I hope by doing this xperia z will turn to a nexus phone *grins*

babylonbwoy said:
It reminds me the Xperia S AOSP thread, lots of hope when they annouced it, but unable to provide a stock rom update to 4.1.2 ! Last one is from september and it's 4.0.4...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
wouldnt Z be different. The S didnt have on screen navi keys and on top of that it was using a snapd 3 chip with 1gb of ram. Touch up was clearly needed for the S, however...
The Z is nearly the same as a Nexus 4 in nearly every way.

paperWastage said:
https://developers.google.com/android/nexus/drivers
then what are these binaries for Nexus devices?
Do devs use those closed-source binaries for building AOSP for nexus devices? (and difference is that Google obtained permissions from everyone to release the binaries?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Read my post again.