Database Users

thor2002ro's Kernel Sources

Am I the only on who is starting to get seriously p*ssed off at thor2002ro's lack of GPL compliance.
@thor2002ro Will you honour the GPL and release the source code to your kernel?

birkoffsjunk said:
Am I the only on who is starting to get seriously p*ssed off at thor2002ro's lack of GPL compliance.
@thor2002ro Will you honour the GPL and release the source code to your kernel?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1.
My biggest gripe about lack of compliance, is that it severely inhibits collaboration.
While thor2002ro may be a good Kernel developer, he/she may not necessarily have a perfect kernel.

ShadowXVII said:
+1.
My biggest gripe about lack of compliance, is that it severely inhibits collaboration.
While thor2002ro may be a good Kernel developer, he/she may not necessarily have a perfect kernel.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's all starting to look a bit juvenile tbh... it would take all of 2 mins to upload, even just as tar/zip.
I've also seen that the Iconia CWM source hasn't been released either, granted I don't believe it's required under the Apache license but add it to the kernel and it starts to paint a picture someone who wants to be in 'control' rather than 'collaborate'.
I'd love to be proven wrong, but with each passing day it gets less and less likely.

birkoffsjunk said:
It's all starting to look a bit juvenile tbh
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
birkoffsjunk said:
I've also seen that the Iconia CWM source hasn't been released either, granted I don't believe it's required under the Apache license but add it to the kernel and it starts to paint a picture someone who wants to be in 'control' rather than 'collaborate'.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
TBH, the branding over CWM is also annoying. My HTC Desire doesn't have any branding, nor does any other CWM Recovery that I've seen previously. I was excited above this device getting attention by Kernel developers, but it seems most will possibly be discouraged with the lack of source.
A kernel that abides by the right licence gets my vote.

I personally could care less either way. Nobody is forcing you to use his work.
But if you are itching for controversy maybe you should check this out http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html

n1nj4dude said:
I personally could care less either way. Nobody is forcing you to use his work.
But if you are itching for controversy maybe you should check this out http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's just inconvenient for collaboration. I want what's best for the device and it's community, really.
Everyone else releases their source, so what makes thor2002ro so special that he isn't able to? As the OP said, it wouldn't take long.
Is thor2002ro embarrassed to show his source code or something?

"It will come when it's done"

now he is developing off site for his own satisfaction, so cant say anything about xda/android gpl violation
those who want to use just use, and we cant force him to release..

first of all, concerning compliance, GPL does not require to publish any source as long as it is not released, and even then it only obliges you to make it available to whom ever requets it and in whatever form including on paper.
second CWM could be published even under apache licence, since it is not part of the kernel.
third since ACER has not published the source of the 3.1 Kernel, how can you ask thor to publish his Kernel for 3.1. If he completely rewrote the Kernel, then he can use any licence he want, if not it's only libraries.
however if you go to his site, and you ask, you will probably get the source of what he is doing, as per GPL.
The only thing I don't like is that he excludes functions from the original ACER kernel, "like encryption", but that is due to the fact he does not have the ACER sources.

zoubidou said:
first of all, concerning compliance, GPL does not require to publish any source as long as it is not released, and even then it only obliges you to make it available to whom ever requets it and in whatever form including on paper.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's released on his site?
zoubidou said:
second CWM could be published even under apache licence, since it is not part of the kernel.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It'd still be appreciated by the community if it was published. I'm aware it's not part of the kernel.
zoubidou said:
third since ACER has not published the source of the 3.1 Kernel, how can you ask thor to publish his Kernel for 3.1. If he completely rewrote the Kernel, then he can use any licence he want, if not it's only libraries. however if you go to his site, and you ask, you will probably get the source of what he is doing, as per GPL.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Acer has a better track record at this point; http://support.acer.com/us/en/product/default.aspx?tab=4&modelId=3851
zoubidou said:
The only thing I don't like is that he excludes functions from the original ACER kernel, "like encryption", but that is due to the fact he does not have the ACER sources.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
An example of where multiple-developer minds could help bring features to the community faster?

sure i agree, but don't hide behind GPL licensing, it has nothing to do with that. I would just suggest that you make it a common rule to be respected maybe with some exceptions if they are reasonably submitted to the admin's.
Maybe thor has some reasons not to follow this rule, if he says so and it's reasonable, let it be, may be not, in which case he should get knocked off, and I mean completely, not just saying you are not allowed to and in fact he is still here and publishing his work without any sources just on a different site, but he has links to it. In fact this would possibly wether make him go away, or come back and comply, because of the audience.
That's what I think but I agree that other ideas are also possible.

As far as CWM is concerned apache license doesn't require the release for the source, but would help the community maintain CWM rather than 1 person.
The kernel is another matter, the GPL is quite clear if you publish, and it has been, your required to make available the source.
Any attempt to change the license is a breach of the GPL.
I have asked repeatedly for said sources.
A user may not completely understand the importance of this, but developers do, and as a developer can thor please release his source code.

zoubidou said:
but don't hide behind GPL licensing, it has nothing to do with that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not hiding behind anything It's a GPL violation. It's a binary release without source.
zoubidou said:
Maybe thor has some reasons not to follow this rule, if he says so and it's reasonable, let it be, may be not, in which case he should get knocked off, and I mean completely, not just saying you are not allowed to and in fact he is still here and publishing his work without any sources just on a different site, but he has links to it. In fact this would possibly wether make him go away, or come back and comply, because of the audience.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not wanting to argue, especially not over reasons as to "why" or "why not" it might be released. In the end, it's not released.
I'd really appreciate it if it was. I'm sure others would too.

i agree with you, especially it could possibly help to make things work which don't work. It could also help tu share the work between experts, each is taking care of a different subject.
What I want to point out is, don't hide behind any licences, just make it the rules.

zoubidou said:
i agree with you, especially it could possibly help to make things work which don't work. It could also help tu share the work between experts, each is taking care of a different subject.
What I want to point out is, don't hide behind any licences, just make it the rules.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The only person hiding is thor :|
Please also remember the Kernel has been developing for decades by thousands of indviduals and companies worldwide, and they all comply with the GPL, why can't thor?
Sorry if I sound like a broken record, it's just the frustration in dealing with this.

Again... i bring up this link http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html
If you truely believe he is violating then this ^^ is all you can do...

I sense jealousy here... Oh no! The romanian wizard that helped so many people must be crucified!

Johnny0906 said:
I sense jealousy here... Oh no! The romanian wizard that helped so many people must be crucified!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lol this ^^

@n1nj4dude yes brilliant if you know his/her real name etc, but we don't...
@Johnny0906 lol grow up
I wonder how long it will take for most to complain once their favourite ROM is removed from xda due to the Kernel violating the GPL

Whatever birkajerkoff

[CM10.X] Developing Question !

Hey lovely community !:laugh:
so guys after the "fight" in the [DEV] thread about developing CM 10.x ...
The thread got closed ! So whats now ?
Will shaaaaan or any other DEV's going on working on this or not ?
I hope you get the the things in the right way ... :highfive:
LOVE YOU <3

Let's forget about CM for a while. Shaan from the first time is speaking for his Samsung Galaxy S Advance and he's got some problem too. Even if he success build the CM for his device, we need someone to port it into GS 3 Mini, so we're far from fully workng CM. So let's wait oliver and the other who really concern about our device GS 3 Mini.

Hey!
Sincerly from my opinion that "fight" was really child`ish. I didnt make a backgroung check on Mac and i dont care what he did in the past as long as he can make something viable for our phones. We can all be "condemned" for not folowing the GNU licence agrement at some point. Anyway its bad that we lost a DEV because some ppl have pride. Afaik the licence doesnt obligate anyone to share, it give you the right to share.
PS: English is not my native language so dont flame about my speling mistake.
PS2: This is just my opinion so take it as is.

Really upset to see that the devellopers where almost done with the first operationnelle version and now everything is gone due to personal ego's!
Unfortunatly I do not have developer skills

AW: [CM10.X] Developing Question !
ztandroid said:
Let's forget about CM for a while. Shaan from the first time is speaking for his Samsung Galaxy S Advance and he's got some problem too. Even if he success build the CM for his device, we need someone to port it into GS 3 Mini, so we're far from fully workng CM. So let's wait oliver and the other who really concern about our device GS 3 Mini.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm very unhappy to hear this but ok ...so we have to wait now
But I'm also an owner of the Galaxy Ace device and if I remember rightly there were a lot of Problems too with Maclaw ... but in anyways he is a good Dev.
Enjoy your week!
And sorry for my english ...
Sent from my GT-I8190 using xda app-developers app

Lol, it was kind of fun. But to bad we have no cm.
Sent from my GT-I8190 using xda premium

Search about Maclaw and GNU first, then judge..
Maclaw break the rules
Enviado desde mi GT-I9070 usando Tapatalk 2

robilaur said:
Hey!
Sincerly from my opinion that "fight" was really child`ish. I didnt make a backgroung check on Mac and i dont care what he did in the past as long as he can make something viable for our phones. We can all be "condemned" for not folowing the GNU licence agrement at some point. Anyway its bad that we lost a DEV because some ppl have pride. Afaik the licence doesnt obligate anyone to share, it give you the right to share.
PS: English is not my native language so dont flame about my speling mistake.
PS2: This is just my opinion so take it as is.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I respect your opinion, but GNU and GPL clearly state that you HAVE TO SHARE THE SOURCE!
I do not respond to tech support via PM

galdosS3mini said:
Really upset to see that the devellopers where almost done with the first operationnelle version and now everything is gone due to personal ego's!
Unfortunatly I do not have developer skills
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Had maclaw given any proof to prove that he had a operational build? Screenshots or something?
I do not respond to tech support via PM

As a matter of fact he did on his webpage, but he removed it because the thread got closed meaning he's stopped the development.

Yes he had pictures with S3 mini booting CM 10 on his website.
Regarding the GNU-GPL licence...well after taking a closer look and reading carefuly i can say I was wrong and u was right. My appologies.
Anyway we could of given him some time .... maibe he whould of shared it. IDK.
Here is the passage from the GNU-GPL licence to make everything clear to everyone :
"When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things.
To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you these rights or asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have certain responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it: responsibilities to respect the freedom of others.
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights."
Best regards.

Benzonat0r said:
As a matter of fact he did on his webpage, but he removed it because the thread got closed meaning he's stopped the development.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not pics about cm booting. Afaik, oliver made a booting cm.
Did he post pics of the stuff he said he fixed?
robilaur said:
Yes he had pictures with S3 mini booting CM 10 on his website.
Regarding the GNU-GPL licence...well after taking a closer look and reading carefuly i can say I was wrong and u was right. My appologies.
Anyway we could of given him some time .... maibe he whould of shared it. IDK.
Here is the passage from the GNU-GPL licence to make everything clear to everyone :
"When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things.
To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you these rights or asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have certain responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it: responsibilities to respect the freedom of others.
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights."
Best regards.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well. He isn't new to xda. He should have followed the rules.
As i already said in the thread, i had no problems if he shared the source when he released the rom. But then, there was no use ot the thread!
If he didn't want to share the source before releasing the rom, he shouldn't have had made that thread in the first place. If he did create the thread, it means he was seeking attention.
Also, did he or did he not ask for donation, before even releasing a single build?
I have seen his ways. That's why i resented.
Also, if he is a real dev, such petty things shouldn't stop him from contributing to the community!
./rant
If you are reading this text, it means that i am too busy currently and won't be tendering any support questions via PM
./rant-end

leave it at that
thread was closed
we should do the same and move on
end of the day we should all be here for the same reason
to help out to improve and add functionality to our phones
don't let one bad apple ruin the whole bunch move on

Shaaan said:
Not pics about cm booting. Afaik, oliver made a booting cm.
Did he post pics of the stuff he said he fixed?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
RIL (call/messages/3G) were fixed from the looks of it.

hi shaaan....i saw that you are from galaxy s advance (same hardware of galaxy s3 mini).....in this evening i will re-start develop from cm10 and stop kernel develop.....(hope that i don't must work)...tomorrow i have 4 days free and i will spend to develop cm10. As i can see Oliver did a great work so i will start from that sources and every change i will publish on his repository. anyway....can you start doing some modifies with your work? The point is this: maclaw after a first compilation had various things working SO he must did something really simple.....such as changing something in BoardConfig.mk. After searching some i founded that we are missing something in this file for RIL problems that can work for our devices (start from there it is the main problem for now). add these in your boardconfig and see if work ( i am at work now and i can't test )
# RIL
BOARD_MOBILEDATA_INTERFACE_NAME := "pdp0"
#SPECIFIED SECRIL(need this to work??/)
BOARD_USES_LIBSECRIL_STUB := true

Benzonat0r said:
As a matter of fact he did on his webpage, but he removed it because the thread got closed meaning he's stopped the development.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well that was a very mature move. He cand allways open a new one and post a build if he wanted.
Sent from my GT-I8190 using xda app-developers app

lupohirp said:
hi shaaan....i saw that you are from galaxy s advance (same hardware of galaxy s3 mini).....in this evening i will re-start develop from cm10 and stop kernel develop.....(hope that i don't must work)...tomorrow i have 4 days free and i will spend to develop cm10. As i can see Oliver did a great work so i will start from that sources and every change i will publish on his repository. anyway....can you start doing some modifies with your work? The point is this: maclaw after a first compilation had various things working SO he must did something really simple.....such as changing something in BoardConfig.mk. After searching some i founded that we are missing something in this file for RIL problems that can work for our devices (start from there it is the main problem for now). add these in your boardconfig and see if work ( i am at work now and i can't test )
# RIL
BOARD_MOBILEDATA_INTERFACE_NAME := "pdp0"
#SPECIFIED SECRIL(need this to work??/)
BOARD_USES_LIBSECRIL_STUB := true
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hey lupohirp, I've just noticed your Acer Liquid repo! Do you still have that device? :laugh:
- sorry for the OT ^^"

lupohirp said:
hi shaaan....i saw that you are from galaxy s advance (same hardware of galaxy s3 mini).....in this evening i will re-start develop from cm10 and stop kernel develop.....(hope that i don't must work)...tomorrow i have 4 days free and i will spend to develop cm10. As i can see Oliver did a great work so i will start from that sources and every change i will publish on his repository. anyway....can you start doing some modifies with your work? The point is this: maclaw after a first compilation had various things working SO he must did something really simple.....such as changing something in BoardConfig.mk. After searching some i founded that we are missing something in this file for RIL problems that can work for our devices (start from there it is the main problem for now). add these in your boardconfig and see if work ( i am at work now and i can't test )
# RIL
BOARD_MOBILEDATA_INTERFACE_NAME := "pdp0"
#SPECIFIED SECRIL(need this to work??/)
BOARD_USES_LIBSECRIL_STUB := true
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We have already fixed RIL in cm10.
Yes. The boardconfig values are needed for RIL to work.
./rant
If you are reading this text, it means that i am too busy currently and won't be tendering any support questions via PM
./rant-end

Pezmet said:
Well that was a very mature move. He cand allways open a new one and post a build if he wanted.
Sent from my GT-I8190 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah very, It makes me sick to think how that guy operates, steals Oliver's sources, fixes a few things and wham!! Calls Oliver's surces his own.
lupohirp said:
hi shaaan....i saw that you are from galaxy s advance (same hardware of galaxy s3 mini).....in this evening i will re-start develop from cm10 and stop kernel develop.....(hope that i don't must work)...tomorrow i have 4 days free and i will spend to develop cm10. As i can see Oliver did a great work so i will start from that sources and every change i will publish on his repository. anyway....can you start doing some modifies with your work? The point is this: maclaw after a first compilation had various things working SO he must did something really simple.....such as changing something in BoardConfig.mk. After searching some i founded that we are missing something in this file for RIL problems that can work for our devices (start from there it is the main problem for now). add these in your boardconfig and see if work ( i am at work now and i can't test )
# RIL
BOARD_MOBILEDATA_INTERFACE_NAME := "pdp0"
#SPECIFIED SECRIL(need this to work??/)
BOARD_USES_LIBSECRIL_STUB := true
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For S3 Mini? For real?

Benzonat0r said:
Yeah very, It makes me sick to think how that guy operates, steals Oliver's sources, fixes a few things and wham!! Calls Oliver's surces his own.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am not saying that he did not use sources from oliver. But where is the proof that he did use them?
You cant be sure.
Sent from my GT-I8190 using xda premium

[Q] Some essential documentation badly needed

I read @Entropy512 write somewhere "we are more in need of developers than of testers at the moment"
To that effect I want to make an appeal to @maxwen @XpLoDWilD @Entropy512 @pulser_g2 and all other people who started the initiative to properly document out a few things
1. If a device maintainer wants to get his device added to omni ROM what should the steps be ?
2. To set up a omni ROM - compliant device tree what are the prerequisites. As in omniROM trees have been seen to be using a format of aosp.mk+custom.mk device makefiles where aosp.mk makes it AOSP-compliant and custom.mk is the omni additions. How custom.mk is to be made (a template maybe ?) should be be documented. In fact I would go out to say a device/custom/sample tree should be made as an example
3. Are there any guidelines as to how much the hardware side codes can be hacked with to make the devices supported ? (Many groups of developers have forks of hardware/qcom/* repos that are pretty liberally spread with #ifdef's and makes them break CTS/CDD in a huge way). How much will these hacks be supported ?
4. Obvious point, what are the fields in which you need help most badly as of now. That is to say ril/telephony experts are highly needed right now or are features the topmost priority or is the highest concern to make the hardware repos tip-top so that devices are completely stable
Also publishing some guides on how to get sources and build the ROM would be good too, but since you are looking for "Developers" right now, it can be assumed that they will figure that much out on their own at least

This documentation will be done.
Actually one of the key goals of omni is to properly document things.
Bear in mind exactly how early this is in the process - it was only yesterday we even made the links available for github...
Documentation will be a large part of going forward and it has been ongoing for a while. Currently that's the biggest task actually, much moreso than the actual development.
Developers don't only write code, they also write docs
To that effect, http://docs.omnirom.org is going to be the home

Among other things I want to do is a "patches for a given feature" document so it's easier to find out how a given feature (such as status bar brightness) was implemented.
I really want to do it before I have too many patches to put in there, but I also have tons of stuff to fix!

Entropy512 said:
Among other things I want to do is a "patches for a given feature" document so it's easier to find out how a given feature (such as status bar brightness) was implemented.
I really want to do it before I have too many patches to put in there, but I also have tons of stuff to fix!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What do you think about this idea? These common kernel patches could also fit into that document.

pulser_g2 said:
This documentation will be done.
Actually one of the key goals of omni is to properly document things.
Bear in mind exactly how early this is in the process - it was only yesterday we even made the links available for github...
Documentation will be a large part of going forward and it has been ongoing for a while. Currently that's the biggest task actually, much moreso than the actual development.
Developers don't only write code, they also write docs
To that effect, http://docs.omnirom.org is going to be the home
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
if I can be of any help let me know,
I would love to see this project start off right from the beginning with proper documentation about EVERYTHING
also +100 to @Entropy512 's idea. documenting each feature and how it has been added is really important
I strongly urge that submissions via gerrit should be enforced to have a well written description in the commit message too. (it is so much easier now with gerrit 2.7+ we can do it right inside our browser after the patch has been uploaded too)

championswimmer said:
if I can be of any help let me know,
I would love to see this project start off right from the beginning with proper documentation about EVERYTHING
also +100 to @Entropy512 's idea. documenting each feature and how it has been added is really important
I strongly urge that submissions via gerrit should be enforced to have a well written description in the commit message too. (it is so much easier now with gerrit 2.7+ we can do it right inside our browser after the patch has been uploaded too)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yup. I've always tried to have a detailed commit message in anything I create, but I think we may need to start enforcing it so everyone does it.

Is there any kind of current features / bugs / patches list on the official build? Or even just a changelog?

orangekid said:
Is there any kind of current features / bugs / patches list on the official build? Or even just a changelog?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There are no official builds yet. Too early for that.
so much work to do.

Entropy512 said:
There are no official builds yet. Too early for that.
so much work to do.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh, I was under the impression there was a compiled "official" version for the N4, N7, etc...
No worries, in due time I'm sure. Be looking forward to the Nexus 5 build..

orangekid said:
No worries, in due time I'm sure. Be looking forward to the Nexus 5 build..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
give us the device first

I follow Omni for the Nexus 5. Nightlies have started since Monday so I'd like to know if there's a general Omni changelog now or a specific one for each device.

I'm a developer without much ROM/Android development. I'd love to give a hand wherever possible, but like @championswimmer said, it's kind of overwhelming to jump in and help. I'm totally cool to be relegated to documenting things if that helps, but I also understand the interruption that it would cause for you guys to slow down long enough to explain what I need to know.
What I do have experience with:
Java
Jenkins
Minimal app development
Other crap that might or might not be helpful

-IMPORTANT UPDATE!- Petition to LEECO for source code release, now in change!

If developers have source code, they will make 100% functional roms. I try sending multiple times emails to LeEco asking for this, but the server always give me spam reply. Because of that I've created a thread in LeEco forum.
Please help doing a coment and voting in the poll.
This is the link to the thread: http://forum.le.com/in/index.php?threads/source-code-for-lemax2.14951/
Regards.
IMPORTANT UPDATE! Now we have a petition in change.org to do the max press possible to the brand. And the signs are for ALL the devices with Qualcomm processors.
Here it is!: https://www.change.org/p/leeco-letv...ents_action_panel_wrapper&utm_medium=copylink

great specs but the development is not so good. if they only release the sources.

Someone mentioned that they are releasing sources in September.

sanke1 said:
Someone mentioned that they are releasing sources in September.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yup, in the official forum, but who knows if is true or a fake...?

I read that they are selling these phones at less than cost as a loss leader to sell people their content services. If so, I very much doubt they are interested in supporting the dev community as that makes it easier for people to get rid of their apps and services from the devices.

We need to achieve that fast!!

Did you get source code from Le? Why don't you share for us?

Anyone has updates about the source code questions?
I didn't find any update on the change.org site.
BTW' we need more votes!!

I sign!
More people need to sign!!
does anyone confirm source code release soon???

i signed.

Signed.

I got response but still no plan for releasing...
https://twitter.com/LeEcoGlobal/status/782992367280422913

I have not (yet) bought the phone b/c there will be no proper development in the absence of a source code release. I will probably go for the Axon 7 although I would like to have a bigger screen. (I will also not buy the Le Pro 3 although it is an interesting phone. Developer-unfriendly phone companies like LeEco are an absolute no-go for me. So sad ... )

Signed

Every tweet they post about their USA launch should get a comment about how their crappy source code policy is...

I doubt they will release the source code

Do not purchase le Max2. Most of the phones have finger print sensor issues.
Sent from my HTC Desire 820 dual sim using XDA-Developers mobile app

mikeysteele said:
Every tweet they post about their USA launch should get a comment about how their crappy source code policy is...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yup, do it guys. I will put it in my petition, that people send tweets with that.

Do you have new news about letv's codes? Why didn't share with us about it?

Maybe the US launch change something I really like the phone my fingerprint has no issue except some times unresponsive but I only had it for a month LOL so fingers crossed
Maybe they'll release the source code and the worth of this phone will double

Queries for Honor

I know we have a thread to discuss source code, but I wanted to make a separate thread to solely address and discuss the queries and requests put in place to honor through @svetius.
I agree with @hackslash that it will be nice to have group of developers who are familiar with Kirin devices and are in good position to make appropriate requests.
I will like for this thread to remain solely about the requests and queries and nothing else. I will be updating as I go with @svetius communication outcomes, as he provides it.
Discussion thus far:
svetius said:
Hey Guys,
Just so you know, I have a direct line at Honor and am able to make requests as it relates to releasing sources and specific documentation. I am not a developer myself, but you guys can feel free to make requests here and I'll bring it back to Honor. It's really important that we get to the point where custom ROM development and full modification is possible on the Honor 8!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Requests
anks329 said:
Svetius, here's what I think we would need, @XePeleato or anyone else, please chime in also!
working kernel code - kinda have this XePeleato's work
device tree
full firmware images (for backup/restore use)
proprietary vendor files
documentation on the SoC
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
XePeleato said:
Cool, I'd love to talk to them personally, but since that doesn't look possible, I'd like to ask for some things (It feels like Christmas lol)
Specific documentation (Code snippets, a document... you know) about:
Their OpenGL implementation​The Hi110X communications IC (Integrated Circuit)​The Audio system​The Camera, other companies with the same sensor released their drivers source so it isn't Top Secret​The SePolicy​
That would be a good starting point and in my opinion it's pretty reasonable.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
anks329 said:
My thought was, if we're asking, might as well go all out and get something like what OnePlus released for the 3. A full working device tree, kernel, etc.... http://www.xda-developers.com/onepl...-3-device-trees-and-kernel-sources-available/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hackslash said:
One Plus did went forward and released proprietary blobs for Dash charging that were supported on AOSP based ROMs. If Huawei don't want to release source codes for their OpenGL, Hi110x, composer, camera, etc implementations, then at least proprietary blobs free from EMUI crap that work with AOSP (this is the least I want; source code is always good as it means we don't have to depend on Huawei if things break or if we want to develop future versions of Android which if aren't released officially by Huawei).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hackslash said:
The most important things we need are:
Proper documentation about the SoC and if possible, a Board Support Package for Kirin which will greatly boost development.
Proprietary blobs which don't include EMUI crap and Huawei's mistakes.
We already have the kernel source which thanks to Huawei was zipped in a non-case sensitive OS and the stock firmware images to extract vendor blobs (which don't work well with AOSP/CM).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hackslash said:
I guess I was dreaming way too much. I'm expecting too much from someone who has delivered nothing in the past. We'll keep it simple then. Honor, please release Kirin documentation, schematics and Board Support Package.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Updates
#1
svetius said:
Here is my most recent email to them:
There is a thread going on here about what the community needs for development on Kirin:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/hono...-code-t3456225
As you can see, here are some of the requirements:
1. Proper documentation on the SOC
2. Proprietary blobs
3. Board schematics
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Additionally, I've asked for them to fix the bootloader unlock function so we can get it to work on Honor 8.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
#2
svetius said:
Guys,
I just got the following from Honor, and I don't know what it means and could use some help dissecting it and refining my requests to them.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0Bw3YYHFxKQxVaDItY0ZCSzMzT2xzRWl6T0t3ZW90azVvaEJF
@anks329 @XePeleato @hackslash @jerryhou85 @Houge_Langley @mgbotoe @DigiGoon
Also, Honor says bootloader unlock tool will work by end of month.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

Thanks for creating this thread. Hope we get some quick responses now

anks329 said:
Thanks for creating this thread. Hope we get some quick responses now
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think it will be nice to organize it per what is attainable and should be released to xda per the partnership we have going on. A kernel source is nice, but more is needed.

mgbotoe said:
I think it will be nice to organize it per what is attainable and should be released to xda per the partnership we have going on. A kernel source is nice, but more is needed.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Indeed, but I don't think that linking Honor to this or other thread is the best way to catch their attention. In my opinion, We should send them precise and concrete requests, maybe with a little description, to be more specific or maybe to explain why is it necessary.
This thread is a great starting point, everyone that wants to get involved could send their requests and whenever We have all of them, We can discuss and finally, send them. It's just an idea.

XePeleato said:
Indeed, but I don't think that linking Honor to this or other thread is the best way to catch their attention. In my opinion, We should send them precise and concrete requests, maybe with a little description, to be more specific or maybe to explain why is it necessary.
This thread is a great starting point, everyone that wants to get involved could send their requests and whenever We have all of them, We can discuss and finally, send them. It's just an idea.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Currently, per the last update i put up, an email was already sent out in regard to:
1. Proper documentation on the SOC
2. Proprietary blobs
3. Board schematics

mgbotoe said:
Currently, per the last update i put up, an email was already sent out in regard to:
1. Proper documentation on the SOC
2. Proprietary blobs
3. Board schematics
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
About the documentation of the SoC, the data sheet is already out, and almost everything is explained, so I don't know what will they send. (If you mean documentation about the inner ICs like the audio amplificator, communications, etc... Then it's a good choice)
About the blobs, those can be found inside emui and are already posted here.
About the board schematics, the schematics can be useful if you are an electrical engineer and want to hook up your Jtag cable, another useful application can be to figure out the GPIOs, but that isn't really going to help someone who wants to build a rom.
Please understand that this isn't a rant, I appreciate what you guys are doing in order to help us, but the communication with Honor is crucial.

I think another request that would attract people to play with their Honor 8 is the warranty void upon rooting.
If possible, please ask them to not void our device's warranty upon rooting it.
UPDATE: Agreed with @XePeleato, we don't need schematics if we are building a ROM, schematics are for those who wants to make it modular (LOL). TBH no schematics or design of the PCB is required if we just want to build ROMs.

XePeleato said:
About the documentation of the SoC, the data sheet is already out, and almost everything is explained, so I don't know what will they send. (If you mean documentation about the inner ICs like the audio amplificator, communications, etc... Then it's a good choice)
About the blobs, those can be found inside emui and are already posted here.
About the board schematics, the schematics can be useful if you are an electrical engineer and want to hook up your Jtag cable, another useful application can be to figure out the GPIOs, but that isn't really going to help someone who wants to build a rom.
Please understand that this isn't a rant, I appreciate what you guys are doing in order to help us, but the communication with Honor is crucial.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For the SoC, I was thinking more in line with what you have stated, amplificator, communications, and things of that matter...I think it will be a good addition personally.
For the blobs, thank you for that inside info! So to understand, those are things we can grab from xda already from previous devices?
And ya, I can definently get your point about the board schematics.
Definitely sitting down and figuring out what is what will be a good start up and gives us a plausible standpoint to argue for the appropriate sources.
It seems you are familiar with emui? What are things that you feel we need personally?

My personal grip right now is the simple things...given the situation i feel having a stable and confirmed way for unlocking bootloader is a must. Additionally, having the firmware available for the u.s models should be a must.
It is not as though it was a simple device released in the wild and xda users decided to try their luck, no. Xda advertised for them...they conversed with them, for them to refuse to unlock users bootloaders is not acceptable.

Company wont release schematics for their board because Chinese fake manufacturers could copy it. I work for Asus and I'm repairing Notebook MB and ZenPads /eeePads motherboards and there's your PC IP and time with Asus logo watermark on schematics so you can't just screen it and post it somewhere. I agree with @mgbotoe that we need stock firmwares and easy way to unlock bootloader first (Edit: easy way like fastboot oem unlock and that's it, waiting for a code from Huawei to unlock can take some time but still hey we can at least unlock it and not to try work around it like for example on S7).

The Board Support Package is a must if we want true custom ROMs for our device. The Board Support Package is the proprietary source code the SoC vendor (HiSilicon) gives to the manufacturer (Huawei, in this case). The manufacturer tweaks the code to implement their stuff and packs those stuff in libraries. Huawei can open source some portion (if not all , HiSilicon won't allow it) of this BSP and this could really boost development. Documentations on how Huawei implements stuff is helpful and if coupled with Board Support Package, this could turn the tables for the development scene for Kirin devices.

I will do my best to give a general summation at chances given.
So the MUST thus far:
Board Support Package?
Official Firmware for all Models provided by Honor, (Specially U.S)?
Official Unlock of the bootloader through Honor, not a third party?
In the spirit of the partnership, and the honor hub...I think it doesn't hurt to push our luck haha

mgbotoe said:
For the SoC, I was thinking more in line with what you have stated, amplificator, communications, and things of that matter...I think it will be a good addition personally.
For the blobs, thank you for that inside info! So to understand, those are things we can grab from xda already from previous devices?
And ya, I can definently get your point about the board schematics.
Definitely sitting down and figuring out what is what will be a good start up and gives us a plausible standpoint to argue for the appropriate sources.
It seems you are familiar with emui? What are things that you feel we need personally?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The blobs can be extracted from the stock rom, that is already posted here, and some of them are suitable for rom development, but some aren't, because some have missing dependencies that are available just in EMUI. For example, in order to enable the modem in the P8 Lite/Honor 4C, We needed to include a Java class that was reversed from the C++ libraries, the same happens with hardware graphic acceleration (We are currently working on it) because it needs some pieces of code, that are proprietary and not compatible with AOSP/CM.
I have written some basic documentation about the experience, and it might be useful to future developers.
About what I think it's necessary, at the OP I made a brief enumeration, and I still think it's reasonable.
EDIT: Saw your last post, the BSP would be more than enough.

mgbotoe said:
I will do my best to give a general summation at chances given.
So the MUST thus far:
Board Support Package?
Official Firmware for all Models provided by Honor, (Specially U.S)?
Official Unlock of the bootloader through Honor, not a third party?
In the spirit of the partnership, and the honor hub...I think it doesn't hurt to push our luck haha
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wait a minute, hold on. You can't unlock the bootloader through Honor? As it has been for all Huawei devices, you have to go here: https://emui.huawei.com/en/plugin.php?id=unlock&mod=detail and sign in with a phone account or an email account that has been used on an EMUI device for more than 15 days. I have requested 2 bootloader unlock codes from Huawei in the past and had no problems whatsoever. The unlock code is also provided immediately.
Official firmwares are only needed to restore to stock ROM if something bad happens. If you're rooted you can always use dd to extract all images manually from a running device.

hackslash said:
Wait a minute, hold on. You can't unlock the bootloader through Honor? As it has been for all Huawei devices, you have to go here: https://emui.huawei.com/en/plugin.php?id=unlock&mod=detail and sign in with a phone account or an email account that has been used on an EMUI device for more than 15 days. I have requested 2 bootloader unlock codes from Huawei in the past and had no problems whatsoever. The unlock code is also provided immediately.
Official firmwares are only needed to restore to stock ROM if something bad happens. If you're rooted you can always use dd to extract all images manually from a running device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
See that's the thing... It doesn't work and I have ran it by couple of xder with the device where the option for honor 8 and the setup just does not go through. I brought it to honor attention and they sent me in a lot of circle just to tell me they do not support the unlocks of honor 8. Has it changed since? I do not know but third parties has been the option to unlock since last I was active in the forum. As for the firmware, I feel having a direct availability of it from honor will be nice in the spirit of the partnership and the hub.
If the user mess up process of rooting it will be nice to have, I feel it slowed a lot of people down initially and it should have been provided from the getko

I was able to unlock my phone through the Chinese version of the website (using google translator). The US site would just redirect back to the main page and not let you enter your information to unlock the phone. So it works, just needs to be a better process.

anks329 said:
I was able to unlock my phone through the Chinese version of the website (using google translator). The US site would just redirect back to the main page and not let you enter your information to unlock the phone. So it works, just needs to be a better process.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Will have to log back in my account on the chinese main and give it another shot. Otherwise was too much hoopla for me to get it unlocked with a direct unlocked codes.

If nothing works, we have to pay to DCUnlocker then. As they support unlocking Honor 8's bootloader.
Sent from my Huawei Honor 7 using Tapatalk

mgbotoe said:
I will do my best to give a general summation at chances given.
So the MUST thus far:
Board Support Package?
Official Firmware for all Models provided by Honor, (Specially U.S)?
Official Unlock of the bootloader through Honor, not a third party?
In the spirit of the partnership, and the honor hub...I think it doesn't hurt to push our luck haha
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So far there is only one, the Firmware (US model)

I wonder if @svetius ever got a response