Just one caveat: I have done searches (read: multiple).
How in the world does CyanogenMod get to all of the supported devices? All of a sudden once CM9 is released, for phones/tablets moving from CM7 to 9, does it go out to all devices or what? Does it need to get ported from the source for each and every individual device? In general, how is CM updated and how does it get out to the officially supported phones/tablets?
Cyanogenmod ROMs do indeed have to be ported to each individual device and maintained. Once a device receives official support from the Cyanogenmod team, daily changes made to the AOSP source code (tweaks and bugfixes by the various contributing devs) are automatically compiled by a "buildbot" and released at the end of each day (thus these builds are called "nightlies"). These nightly updates are then made available for download through the Cyanogenmod website and through ROM Manager. Once code updates reach a certain plateau, a "final release"-worthy balance of features and stability, the build is released separately as a "stable" build (such as CM7.1), though you can still download it from the website or from ROM Manager just as with the nightlies. CM9 will eventually receive the same treatment and be released in the form of nightlies and stable builds.
Further (highly recommended) reading can be found here: http://www.cyanogenmod.com/blog/the-current-and-future-state-of-cyanogenmod-nightlies
Has anyone seen John Connor?
so the nightlies don't have to be ported, but every major revision does?
hugabu said:
so the nightlies don't have to be ported, but every major revision does?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No.
"Porting" is just a word used for the process of making the rom work on any certain device.
So to answer your question, once the work of porting CM to the certain device is done, that port is used as the base for both the stable and nightly builds.
Look at the analogy of when a new phone comes out, case manufacturers create a mold to use to make their cases fit the certain phone, and that mold is used to make all kinds of cases. Same concept
Related
I've been following the development of so-called ROMs for the Vibrant (and other SGS devices), but I have yet to see a single AOSP ROM. Even when Samsung released the original kernel sources for 2.1, there were no AOSP 2.1 ROMs. Why not? Is it because they don't know which BLOBs to pull for insertion or the proper vendor overlays?
Some developers have done great work with SGS kernels (especially supercurio and his Voodoo kernels ... eugene373's tend to always wipe the internal SD card unnecessarily ...). But, a kernel does not a ROM make ... therefore I ask, what is truly missing to build an AOSP ROM. I've gone through the sources, but I don't follow makefiles too well.
I know we have another month or so before Samsung is obligated to release their 2.2 kernel sources, but that should have no impact on 2.1 AOSP ROMs. Therefore, I ask "what is the hold up?" What is missing, and what might I contribute ...
Need 2.2 source code...
2.1 is a dead horse--why bother when 2.2/2.3 are out?
The reason to bother is to at least get AOSP running. Once its on 2.1, it'll be easier to get 2.2 AOSP running on it. But claiming 2.1 is a "dead horse" is the wrong path ... the real question still stands: after 9 months on the market their still are no AOSP ROMs.
MIUI
Now that vibrant 2.2 source is released ... we finally have a REAL AOSP port and my all time favorite from my old HD2 the MIUI.... so keep your heads up and wait for it to get finished.
Get a custom rom. There are so many good devs doing them don't waste your time on AOSP....... until they release the actual source code...... on April 22
sarim.ali said:
Now that vibrant 2.2 source is released ... we finally have a REAL AOSP port and my all time favorite from my old HD2 the MIUI.... so keep your heads up and wait for it to get finished.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Except, the 2.2 source for the Vibrant has not been released. The SGH-T959D that shows Froyo sources on Samsung's site is for the Canadian Fascinate, not the US T-Mobile Vibrant. Samsung has yet to release the 2.2 sources.
oka1 said:
Get a custom rom. There are so many good devs doing them don't waste your time on AOSP....... until they release the actual source code...... on April 22
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Except the so-called "custom ROMs" are just modifications on the stock theme, a replacement kernel and a change of some of the supplied applications.
There is nothing close to a full "custom ROM" such as CyanogenMod or MIUI because we don't have Samsung's sources. What is passing for a "custom ROM" for the Vibrant are just repackaged files. It is akin to the "ROM cooking" that took place for the WinMo phones, not a truly ground-up build from source that is possible with Android.
EDT/Devs4Android has the MIUI build. From Source.
TW has a 2.2.1 in testing.
EDT has a 2.2.1 Beta released.
TW has a 2.3 AOSP in testing. From Source.
EDT has 2.2 AOSP in testing. From Source.
What you want is out there for you.
Watch the forums and reply when a call for Alpha testers is posted.
Hopefully it won't be long before you see a full TW/EDT/Devs4Android collaboration!
I think what the original poster is trying to ask (and I have the same question) is why were there never any real 2.1 AOSP, cyanogen5 for the vibrant. The source for 2.1 has been around for many months. Were some other proprietary bits missing, was the released source code such a mess that it was unbuildable, something else? With those questions in mind, why will things be any different when the 2.2 source comes out?
mattb3 said:
I think what the original poster is trying to ask (and I have the same question) is why were there never any real 2.1 AOSP, cyanogen5 for the vibrant. The source for 2.1 has been around for many months. Were some other proprietary bits missing, was the released source code such a mess that it was unbuildable, something else? With those questions in mind, why will things be any different when the 2.2 source comes out?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, this is more towards what I was getting at. We do not have Samsung's kernel sources for 2.2. And, we do not have a Samsung provided vendor overlay.
When we receive these two pieces, then a true AOSP build will be possible. However, we do have the 2.1 kernel sources, so why wasn't a true AOSP build possible then? What was missing, and can we actually expect Samsung to release the overlay that's needed?
Actually, that's true. I know it was old but why didn't anyone build a 2.1 cyanogen or aosp rom? (Not to say its easy.)
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
A noob question, kindly can someone explain what is the vendor overlay stuff?
Many thanks!
Where have you been?
rpcameron said:
I've been following the development of so-called ROMs for the Vibrant (and other SGS devices), but I have yet to see a single AOSP ROM. Even when Samsung released the original kernel sources for 2.1, there were no AOSP 2.1 ROMs. Why not? Is it because they don't know which BLOBs to pull for insertion or the proper vendor overlays?
Some developers have done great work with SGS kernels (especially supercurio and his Voodoo kernels ... eugene373's tend to always wipe the internal SD card unnecessarily ...). But, a kernel does not a ROM make ... therefore I ask, what is truly missing to build an AOSP ROM. I've gone through the sources, but I don't follow makefiles too well.
I know we have another month or so before Samsung is obligated to release their 2.2 kernel sources, but that should have no impact on 2.1 AOSP ROMs. Therefore, I ask "what is the hold up?" What is missing, and what might I contribute ...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Dude theres been a true AOSP ROM for the Vibrant since like december and thats CM 6.1
Im running it now
rpcameron said:
I've been following the development of so-called ROMs for the Vibrant (and other SGS devices), but I have yet to see a single AOSP ROM. Even when Samsung released the original kernel sources for 2.1, there were no AOSP 2.1 ROMs. Why not? Is it because they don't know which BLOBs to pull for insertion or the proper vendor overlays?
Some developers have done great work with SGS kernels (especially supercurio and his Voodoo kernels ... eugene373's tend to always wipe the internal SD card unnecessarily ...). But, a kernel does not a ROM make ... therefore I ask, what is truly missing to build an AOSP ROM. I've gone through the sources, but I don't follow makefiles too well.
I know we have another month or so before Samsung is obligated to release their 2.2 kernel sources, but that should have no impact on 2.1 AOSP ROMs. Therefore, I ask "what is the hold up?" What is missing, and what might I contribute ...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For probably the same reason that many phones with non AOSP firmware running 1.5/1.6 did not bother with AOSP 1.5/1.6 when they were released around the time 2.1 source hit. Why bother developing at all for what is essentially an "out of date" OS.
The only people it seems who actively continue to develop for existing (as opposed to new) firmware are manufacturers and carriers. This stupidity should be left to the manufacturers who still do this.
One of the larger snags way back then (sits in his rocking chair on the porch) was a lack of understanding of the phones proprietary aspects and how to work around them. But we have a fairly clear understanding of Samsung's boot process now, and RFS can now easily be turned into a distant memory.
I would wager a guess that the apathy towards 2.1 will not repeat itself once we have 2.2 source widely available and the low level similarities between 2.2 and 2.3 should have Gingerbread being more than the experiment it currently is. It's been barely more than a week since Eugene's little present manifested and there are already proper and stable kernels available.
Keep in mind that the devs we do have, have done a phenomenal job of cleaning up, speeding up, and drastically enhancing our existing 2.2 release. And perhaps to the point where many will not really care, though I know many would still like to see CyanogenMod6/7 properly on this phone.
Master&Slave™ said:
Dude theres been a true AOSP ROM for the Vibrant since like december and thats CM 6.1
Im running it now
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Um, that's not quite true. The CyanogenMod.com website lists 0 files available for download for either experimental or stable files. The CM6.1 you must be running is not a true CM build.
Also, CM is not AOSP, but rather AOSP with modifications.
phrozenflame said:
A noob question, kindly can someone explain what is the vendor overlay stuff?
Many thanks!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The vendor overlay tells the AOSP build system which proprietary files are needed from the device that are not available in source form. This includes things like GPS and video drivers, baseband firmware for wireless radios, &c.
hi everybody !
a month age i decided to compile a new rom for my Galaxy S absolutely from AOSP source ( branch 2.2.1_r1 ) after some compile-time problem and many painful steps to resolve ,eventually the rom successfully built and can boot it up flawlessly on emulator.
i create a nandroid backup of current rom and installed the compiled one. but i am facing new problem :
1- the phone successfully boots but after short while screen began
flicking several time and the phone go in deep sleep and never wakeup
( power button or menu button does not do any thing )
2- touch screen works only for some second that I can unlock the
phone
3- there is no network available
4- I have downloaded samsung opesource package for GT-I9000. it
contains a folder named 'platform' but when i merge these files to
AOSP , the compile process stops and fails again. if there any one can
help me which files from samsung source should i merge and how ? if
you now the answer and dont have spare time then some internet link or
online document is really useful .i have no problem studding and
reading and searching . reaching to target is my only hope .
I am really disappointed why there is not a good and complete step2step tutorial to compile an AOSP rom for galaxy s (GT-I9000) !!
such docs is available for phones like dell streak , desire , dream , magic , .... . i really want to to active these aspect on XDA forum and with help of all you ( mods and masters ) try to create such tutorial that any one in world can use to refer . i think XDA is the only reference on net to collect and create such help and document. please help me and leave PM or comment to agree ot disagree and from where can i start ?!! thank in advanced .
edit :
there is a google groups post that i send my question in Android-platform . if you prefer please join this group and active that post to ask any question related to 'galaxy s compile from source ' .
post located at http://groups.google.com/group/android-platform/browse_thread/thread/da5d6f18f3bd3c9b
I had hear about cyanogenmod earlier and even tried to install it once when I was a rank noob without much luck. In my recent explorations of kernels and cifs I found myself at the cm site. It seemed pretty organized and I thought it might be interesting to have another go at it. I followed the instructions and installed it and it worked flawlessly. I restored my apps from Titanium backup and I'm up and running. I did some research in our forum and that, combined with some of my own observations, makes me wonder about the relationship between CM and some of the other roms like Vegan Ginger (which I really like) I get the impression that some or even all of our roms here are derivatives of CM that have been tweaked further by our devs. Is this correct? What is the difference between Vegan Ginger for example and CM7? I'm really puzzled because the kernels and the basic look and feel seem very similar. Someone even remarked that all of our roms are derivatives of CM. I'd be interested to know some of the background and the pedigrees of the various roms and their relationship with CM.
Cyanogenmod is one of the more known and talented group of Android ROM developers, developing for many devices and being a large team of dedicated coders, artist, etc...
They have taken the stock AOSP code and have modified, enhanced and added features far beyond the stock code. Most ROMs you see that have these additions are because they are forked from Cyanogenmod's github and then edited to look like their own (different graphic images, different text wording, etc..).
CyanogenMod was also one of the only ROM devs that I know of that got a Cease & Desist letter from Google early on and created the separated config of installing the rom.zip and Gapps.zip (Rom image and Google Apps).
As for how Vegan-Ginger relates...
Project Moving to Gingerbread
January 12, 2011 14 Comments
Just a quick update for everyone so you know where we stand at this point. Because of all the issues I have had trying to reverse engineer fixes into VEGAn, we have decided to move away from the actual VEGA system image. We have decided to move the project to a MODIFIED CyanogenMod 7 (aka Gingerbread) ROM with “inspiration from VEGA”. This will allow us to not only fix issues more easily but our work would also directly benefit the CM7 camp as well. This would give also give everyone the choice of a completely stock gingerbread like ROM as well.
THERE IS NO ETA AS OF YET FOR A RELEASE. When there is one…. you all will be the first to know! Exciting Times Ahead.
-GoJimi
Extreme GingerNerd
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A few of Sony Ericsson's newest devices are queued up to get CyanogenMod Custom ROM. Thanks to recent code submitted by Diogo Ferreira, the bits needed to bring my favorite custom ROM to three smartphones in the Xperia family:
- Xperia Play: r.cyanogenmod.com/#change,7126
- Xperia Neo: r.cyanogenmod.com/#change,7128
- Xperia Arc: r.cyanogenmod.com/#change,7127
Currently the code to add these phones to the CyanogenMod family is awaiting approval to be merged into the CyanogenMod repository. Once that's done we can expect nightly builds to follow not long after.
From that point it's just a matter of time before Release Candidates and a Final Build is available.
Source: http://r.cyanogenmod.com/#q,status:open,n,z
Via: http://pocketnow.com/android/sony-xperia-play-neo-and-arch-getting-cyanogenmod-custom-rom
Woohoo! I am getting a bit sick of my SE ROM, I want a Cyanogen!
very nice, i wasn't expecting official nightlies for our play's
Great!!!!!!!!!
Official CM7 on my Xperia Play is Very very Great
Come on!!!!!!!!
I'd like to hear word from the FreeXperia team. Are they maintaining CM7 officially?
At any rate, I already ROM Manager ready for action ^^
This is only for plays that are bootloader unlockable right? Any progress on unlocking the bootloader on simlocked phones?
RacecarBMW said:
This is only for plays that are bootloader unlockable right? Any progress on unlocking the bootloader on simlocked phones?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We're making progress on CDMA phones.
The problem is that simlocked phones don't have RCK_H key so there's nothing to crack the unlock key from. But as said, I'll check it, I have some people willing to test.
Looks as though it has now been merged. Really looking forward 2 flashing nightlies. Cyanogen best mod by a looooooonnnnggggg stretch.
And just in time so that Verizon users can join the party
Hi, I am Diogo Ferreira (submitter of these patches)
I think you'd be happy to know that they are now already merged and in a buildable state with nightlies following soon.
This is not an alternative to FreeXperia work, it is FreeXperia work. We've been all working together to make this happen.
I'd be happy to answer questions you might have.
deovferreira said:
Hi, I am Diogo Ferreira (submitter of these patches)
I think you'd be happy to know that they are now already merged and in a buildable state with nightlies following soon.
This is not an alternative to FreeXperia work, it is FreeXperia work. We've been all working together to make this happen.
I'd be happy to answer questions you might have.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi Diogo. Glad to hear from you. Does this mean Xperias will be listed on CM homepage under supported devices, and will get official forum's section?
Given that most of the features worked already in the betas (great job by the FX folks), the main question for the Play resides on the camera. What's the status on that?
And for those people who have ROM Manager Premium, will the nightlies come through it as well?
No ETAS on camera. It will be done when it's done but we're looking into it.
As for nightlies, they should be available soon.
deovferreira, is the team making an official kernel as well to compliment the nightly builds? If we are using ROM Manager, then CWM Recovery is essential, and it would be great to have a kernel that had this built in, like the FreeXperia's team does now.
Also, will the ROM be generic for all users? I had quite a few issues with the radio yesterday on my CDMA Play when I tried FreeXperia's latest build. I just wanted to make sure that builds would support all versions of the play, not just the R800i.
Mills00013 said:
deovferreira, is the team making an official kernel as well to compliment the nightly builds? If we are using ROM Manager, then CWM Recovery is essential, and it would be great to have a kernel that had this built in, like the FreeXperia's team does now.
Also, will the ROM be generic for all users? I had quite a few issues with the radio yesterday on my CDMA Play when I tried FreeXperia's latest build. I just wanted to make sure that builds would support all versions of the play, not just the R800i.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What is on CM today is on par with what we did for FreeXperia, the kernel has a builtin recovery. You'll see instructions on this soon when nightlies start to hit.
As for CDMA, I am not aware what the differences are. I support a CDMA device (desire-cdma) but it is a PITA since I have no real way to test. What would be good is if someone steps up and tried to maintain a play-cdma port, I imagine the differences would be fairly minimal.
deovferreira said:
What is on CM today is on par with what we did for FreeXperia, the kernel has a builtin recovery. You'll see instructions on this soon when nightlies start to hit.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Awesome. The only reason I asked is because of how its different from other devices. The kernel always has to be flashed with fastboot. So I just didn't know how the updates would work or anything like that. I assume we just flash one to start the process and go downhill from there.
deovferreira said:
As for CDMA, I am not aware what the differences are. I support a CDMA device (desire-cdma) but it is a PITA since I have no real way to test. What would be good is if someone steps up and tried to maintain a play-cdma port, I imagine the differences would be fairly minimal.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree completely. It appears that the kernel was working fine, there is just something in the CM build that was preventing the radio from working correctly. Logcat was telling me that it detected a CDMA mode and enabled it but then the phone module would crash. It was late when I started looking into it though and didn't do a lot of research, but I imagine that someone has encountered this with a CDMA port from a GSM cousin before. I'll do some more investigation this evening.
The boot will always have to be flashed separately using fastboot due to the way the sony ericsson bootloaders transforms the boot image on flashing. System updates will be done using the recovery, as usual. At some point the kernel and system may get out of sync, the symptom would be wifi failing to enable, at which point people would have to flash a new kernel.
As for CDMA, the RIL libraries should be different as should some settings in build.prop.
Awesome. I'll see what I can do this evening, and maybe even pump out a working build from the source for CDMA users.
Guys, stay calm.
this is FreeXperia CM7 "just" as official CM
So that is what you all wanted.
We worked over some time now with Diogo, all of us 3 ( Diogo, jerpela and me) have commited our changes, put them together and worked together.
All will be good See it as a surprise
I'm working for over 1 month now everyday on camera support. For now nothing new, but new knowledge
currently i'm looking into camera for new 4.x Firmware release, maybe SE changed something in a good way for us...
Best Regards
Bin4ry
Team FreeXperia
Ok I just read the thread and maybe I missed it, my xperia play is from Rogers. Will I be able to install cm 7?
Sent from my Play, with XDA Premium.
Hello XDA-Developers.
Some of my friends in the phone/wireless communications business (including a PhD) tell me that custom ROMs are unsafe and there could be written in the code spyware such as keyloggers that can steal your data and do other things of the sort in the background. Cyanogenmod (and AOKP maybe) seem to be pretty safe, and I am running it on my i897, but the Legend is not supported anymore and the latest official ROM I can get is Gingerbread on CM7, which is very slow and seems to have issues. However, I have found these UNOFFICIAL Cyanogenmod/AOKP ROMS made by others:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2353659
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2222597
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1905588
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1562595
2.2 ROM
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=866849
Note: Don't know if this matters, but all the ROMs save the last were not made by Recognised Developers.
These ROMs (I haven't tried some of them yet) run very smoothly on the Legend and are almost as good as a daily driver.
So can I trust these ROMs because they are based on CM/AOKP but are unofficial, or is the security compromised as it was unofficially done by a member? I would like answers from a technical point of view, not speculation such as 'devs usually have no intent', etc. Don't get me wrong, I may be paranoid, but I truly appreciate the amazing work that devs here are doing, but the possibility of security issues, especially with Linux and open source, is of my concern.
Hello,
Does someone know if rom makers actually fix bugs in the Android source code? for example, can the bugs presented in android 5.0 be fixed by Cyanogen or do they have to wait for Google to release a new version?
I recently read about a memory leak in Android 5.0, and I'm running CM12 nightly and i haven't experienced any memory leak, did CM fix that?
Yes, they often are able to and do fix bugs. Occasionally Google or other manufacturers use fixes from the community. But often times the normal rom maker is more of a maintainer - just building from Source for a particular device and need to wait till the commits are pushed to the source code before the rom makers can add to a particular device.
es0tericcha0s said:
Yes, they often are able to and do fix bugs. Occasionally Google or other manufacturers use fixes from the community. But often times the normal rom maker is more of a maintainer - just building from Source for a particular device and need to wait till the commits are pushed to the source code before the rom makers can add to a particular device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Great answer, thank you!
es0tericcha0s said:
Yes, they often are able to and do fix bugs. Occasionally Google or other manufacturers use fixes from the community. But often times the normal rom maker is more of a maintainer - just building from Source for a particular device and need to wait till the commits are pushed to the source code before the rom makers can add to a particular device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good to know, thanks!