Related
I'd really like to get the Galaxy S2, but not without Cyanogen Mod support. What do you think are the chances that the Galaxy S2 will get CM? The Galaxy S still has no stable CM Rom.
Does a bear **** in the woods?
Sent from my HTC Desire using XDA Premium App
Polar bears don't.
But why doesn't the Galaxy S have a stable CM ROM then?
Stock Media Codecs > CM
if they find a way to keep all the goodies from Samsung then I'm all for it
Frankly, I don't care about the Samsung programmes. If it can be turned off, then ok, but I'd rather have the whole CM experience.
This hardly seems like the right forum for this thread...
So what's the right forum, if not the Galaxy S II Android Development Forum?
Android Development should only contain threads based on actual projects/ROMs/kernels/etc being developed. Discussions about what may or may not be coming to the device should go in general. Best rule of thumb in my book: if you're not actually developing something yourself, a thread shouldn't be started here.
Sorry if I came off like a prick - I just know that this ends up becoming more work for the mods who have to comb through and move threads around.
Also I apologize for theoretically hijacking your thread - Just trying to help keep people in the know
hopefully it will get CM
i really cant stand touchwiz
slyydrr said:
Android Development should only contain threads based on actual projects/ROMs/kernels/etc being developed. Discussions about what may or may not be coming to the device should go in general. Best rule of thumb in my book: if you're not actually developing something yourself, a thread shouldn't be started here.
Sorry if I came off like a prick - I just know that this ends up becoming more work for the mods who have to comb through and move threads around.
Also I apologize for theoretically hijacking your thread - Just trying to help keep people in the know
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No problem, I didn't know that.
Maybe a moderator can move the thread into the appropriate forum.
What I really like to know is why the Galaxy S still hasn't got a stable release. Is this also to be expected with the S2?
slyydrr said:
Android Development should only contain threads based on actual projects/ROMs/kernels/etc being developed. Discussions about what may or may not be coming to the device should go in general. Best rule of thumb in my book: if you're not actually developing something yourself, a thread shouldn't be started here.
Sorry if I came off like a prick - I just know that this ends up becoming more work for the mods who have to comb through and move threads around.
Also I apologize for theoretically hijacking your thread - Just trying to help keep people in the know
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree. Good post, and yes, this should have been in General. Just keep that in mind for the next time We are all excited for this phone, and i personally think that Samsung stock ROM is also quite good. However, to each his own, and I am sure that CM will be out for this phone too
Cheers!
ro-mann said:
No problem, I didn't know that.
Maybe a moderator can move the thread into the appropriate forum.
What I really like to know is why the Galaxy S still hasn't got a stable release. Is this also to be expected with the S2?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Moved to general
The SGS2 is similar to the SGS in many ways, therefore CM will be difficult to port over.
Especially that there is no Nexus S 2 (a lot of CM7 is from the Nexus S)
Don't expect CM7+ to be running on the SGS2 anytime soon, although it probably eventually will. That's unless anything else happen (a/a genius comes along b/samsung open source more stuff c/Nexus S 2 is released d/sgs2 shares even more with the sgs than I though and current work can be ported over more easily)
This phone is fast enough without CM7. A clean up of the stock ROM, a new launcher and its sweet enough!
Sent from my GT-I9100 using XDA App
risq said:
This phone is fast enough without CM7. A clean up of the stock ROM, a new launcher and its sweet enough!
Sent from my GT-I9100 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It will still miss the CM Tweaks.
A shame that Cyanogen has chosen the G2x as his next phone. The Galaxy S2 is way better than the G2x.
bilboa1 said:
The SGS2 is similar to the SGS in many ways, therefore CM will be difficult to port over.
Especially that there is no Nexus S 2 (a lot of CM7 is from the Nexus S)
Don't expect CM7+ to be running on the SGS2 anytime soon, although it probably eventually will. That's unless anything else happen (a/a genius comes along b/samsung open source more stuff c/Nexus S 2 is released d/sgs2 shares even more with the sgs than I though and current work can be ported over more easily)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i'm not aware of the history, why exactly was it difficult to bring cyanogen to the original galaxy s, and hence this SGS2 as well? wasnt it like any other phone, the source was released, and cm team built from that?
RogerPodacter said:
i'm not aware of the history, why exactly was it difficult to bring cyanogen to the original galaxy s, and hence this SGS2 as well? wasnt it like any other phone, the source was released, and cm team built from that?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Open-source drivers are hard to find. The system is open source but the drivers are not.
amtrakcn said:
Open-source drivers are hard to find. The system is open source but the drivers are not.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Isn't this the case with any other phone?
But why doesn't the Galaxy S have a stable CM ROM then?
Buy the devs a SGS 2 and they can work on it . Bit hard to work on a phone you dont have .
jje
Well, apparently they have a Galaxy S, otherwise there wouldn't be Release Candidates.
Here is Our new forum.
XDA, the moderators and the powers that be.... have been wrestling with trying to differentiate the Difference between the Code-writing Development and the Quasi-developers that use rom cooking tools or are just porting roms.
To that end we will be going through the development threads in the next couple of weeks and moving the appropriate threads that meet the original code requirement to be placed in this new forum.
Please bear in mind that this is a "Work in Progress" and will take a bit of time to hone and perfect what goes where.
Also, please understand that this does not mean that some developers are on some special pedestal. That is not the case.
I will use an analogy to explain:
A music composer writes an original piece of music. The music composition may be awesome... but his performance of it, may not.
Such often is the case in developers..... often someone comes up with a awesome idea or new code application, but it often ends up being perfected by the use of others putting their creative spin on it.
That is the beauty of The Android Platform and ....XDA provides a fertile field for all to share ideas and collectively improve our experience.
Additionally, we need to provide and track the proper credit to the original code writing Developer and better comply with the GPL requirements of Android......
I hope this clarifys the potential questions
Thanks from the Moderators
~~~ (oka1)~~~
I though this forum is for all the Samsung original/stock roms
TL;DR version.
Stuff you've made. Pure AOSP ROM's you've built from sauce. Or a AOKP ROM you've buildt.
"Cooked" ROMs, like taking a TouchWiz ROM and just adding some APKs etc is not original developement.
So does my Asylum ICS count as original? Since every version is built from source? And then modified to my liking?
antiochasylum said:
So does my Asylum ICS count as original? Since every version is built from source? And then modified to my liking?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
AFAIK, Asylum will be considered as a cooked ROM with AOKP/CM9 as the base
Saw this sometime back in HOX forums and liked the idea. Glad it's here in Note's forums too. If not anything, it will make the development forum a less pain to search, at least it was for me. Now I can look up to the original ROMs here, and their derivatives in the other section. Cool enough!
FIRRST!!!
Ah shoot!
Liking this idea, but it means an extra click for my daily routine, heh
This should be labelled "AOSP ROMs" and the other "TouchWizz ROMs" for better clarification.
Good to see a separate forum. Now it is well organized and less cluttered.
parthpatels007 said:
AFAIK, Asylum will be considered as a cooked ROM with AOKP/CM9 as the base
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
IMHO - any ROM or kernel built from source should be in original development.
I mean, with parth's logic, CM9 isn't original development as it uses AOSP as base...
nickshertzer said:
IMHO - any ROM or kernel built from source should be in original development.
I mean, with parth's logic, CM9 isn't original development as it uses AOSP as base...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
^lol good point there :good:
Sorry, but your development forum separation is a pain in ass for me. I don't want to open two pages instead of one to see all news about ROMs. This is really stupid and uncomfortable. I don't care who made ROM and which way it's done. I just wan't to find ROM thread, and that's all!
anonymous572 said:
Sorry, but your development forum separation is a pain in ass for me. I don't want to open two pages instead of one to see all news about ROMs.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Use your hands.
This is really stupid and uncomfortable. I don't care who made ROM and which way it's done. I just wan't to find ROM thread, and that's all!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is how it should be. If you want only COOKED ROM THREADS go to the old Development Section.
This Forum is a very good idea as I know exactly where I will be heading now.
anonymous572 said:
Sorry, but your development forum separation is a pain in ass for me. I don't want to open two pages instead of one to see all news about ROMs. This is really stupid and uncomfortable. I don't care who made ROM and which way it's done. I just wan't to find ROM thread, and that's all!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1 here, i think the developers and "porters" deserves the same credit, Developers for Develop new features and Porters to make speddy ROMs.
with this, new members can be confused (thinking that many do not read the rules and announcements)
Just my opinion...But the moderators has the decision
Cya
How do we request certain threads to be moved from Android Dev -> Original Android Dev and vice-versa? The few that have been put here appear to be a bit random...
eg. If GL_NOTECORE kernel is considered "original" dev, then why isn't the Goku kernel also here? Both of those are based off Speedmod K3-3 after all...
It is what it is. Let the mods do the job. I never lose my threads simply because I subscribe them under my favorite folders. Quite a smooth transition. I was not even aware some of the threads are moved here Now I know why there is separation in GT-I9100 sections.
darkoctavius said:
with this, new members can be confused (thinking that many do not read the rules and announcements)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
New members get confused because they do not read. The number of subforums (5 or 6) won't add much of confusion.
I'm happy with this new structure. I got a little bit tired from too many innovative ROMs with tweaks, themes, addons and - my favorite - boot animations. Even Kernels start to spread (like clones of hardore's SpeedMod).
Now I start every morning with the OAD forum looking for real changes.
Boy124 said:
Use your hands.
This is how it should be. If you want only COOKED ROM THREADS go to the old Development Section.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Couldn't agree more.
aussiebum said:
How do we request certain threads to be moved from Android Dev -> Original Android Dev and vice-versa? The few that have been put here appear to be a bit random...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you know what you do, you can report them.
eg. If GL_NOTECORE kernel is considered "original" dev, then why isn't the Goku kernel also here? Both of those are based off Speedmod K3-3 after all...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not really, GL_NOTECORE is based on Samsung source (with inspirations from hardcore and others), while Goku kernel is based specifically on SpeedMod kernel :
g.lewarne said:
Introducing my custom built kernel for ICS Touchwiz ROMs​Features:
- Built from HK ICS Opensource 1 (July 7th release)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
funky81 said:
funky81 presents Goku Kernel, a kernel based on hardcore masterpiece, SpeedMod Kernel OCS K3-3
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, both my own and Funky81's kernel (Goku) are both built from source with original development.
We are simply applying a patch that hardcore made for the original code source release which address some issues that we would have had to address anyway. there is no point in re-inventing the wheel. In my latest releases built from the newer source I am not even applying hardcores patch, just grabbing a few alterations that were made so the code compiles properly.
In fact, both of our kernels are vastly different from Hardcore's in respect to what we are trying to achieve with them. I am going for all out speed, and had to devise my own code (and follow the horrendously awful Exynos4 for developers manual from Samsung) to inject the correct overclocking PLL and register values into the code. This is not something that Hardcore, or anyone else apart from Thor (for cm9) has done with the kernel.
funky has made lots of alterations too, so neither of our kernels can really be called "speedmod clones" and to do so, without reading at the very least the OP of each thread and understanding what is being said, is a little disrespectful.
To follow another analogy along the lines of oka1's from the OP
If speedmod is building the basic car, Funky81 and myself are designing the turbo, exhaust system, air intake and tuning the ECU and packaging it all together. Both are as important as each other and both are original.
Thanks for your explainations. (out of thx for today)
My Atrix got it's case cracked and the touch-screen display died, and given I already got a replacement phone I feel a bit adventurous. I wanted to see if I could build my own computer with what remains, so I wanted to run Linux natively (no Android). Given that there's a Linux 4 Tegra from Nvidia:
Is there a chance that I could build my own distro based on that?
Should I use another kernel (like the one currently used in gingerbread or CM7)?
Please note that I'm not trying to do webtop.
I thought of building my own handheld with the Atrix, or what remains of it. So any tips on how to get started would be great.
Cheers!
wrong section
ovitz said:
wrong section
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Umm... what section would you suggest other than Q&A?
It was moved. Sorry 'bout that. I was under the impression that development questions were on the other forum...
"Android development" is in the description. I think they keep that forum just for Android-specific things, even though Android is just a flavor of linux.
tonglebeak said:
"Android development" is in the description. I think they keep that forum just for Android-specific things, even though Android is just a flavor of linux.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're being way too literal. It's been used for all sorts of non-Android dev multiple times. Right now, Boot2Gecko is right there. The fact of the matter is that when it pertains to dev questions, this post would most likely be answered there. I'm pretty sure it'll die here on this forum with barely any useful answer, if at all.
The development section is mostly for things that are "in progress", ie. with "something to show". Questions, discussions and ideas go elsewhere.
As for your question, I believe I've seen a thread about this already, and quite recently too.
ravilov said:
The development section is mostly for things that are "in progress", ie. with "something to show". Questions, discussions and ideas go elsewhere.
As for your question, I believe I've seen a thread about this already, and quite recently too.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've checked a few that I've found on the forum, but most had no answer and were about other devices. With regards to the Atrix or the Tegra, I've only found threads about webtop.
Not to argue too much about this too much, but I've seen threads that started with nothing in the dev section. Like the Kernel porting project that started as a mere placeholder for the project. Point is, I've done my research and found no pointers to the questions I have. I made it in case another dev had an idea about it. I may have missed something, but that's why I asked in the first place. If I believed I had covered all grounds by myself, I wouldn't have asked in the first place.
Lugaidster said:
I've checked a few that I've found on the forum, but most had no answer and were about other devices. With regards to the Atrix or the Tegra, I've only found threads about webtop.
Not to argue too much about this too much, but I've seen threads that started with nothing in the dev section. Like the Kernel porting project that started as a mere placeholder for the project. Point is, I've done my research and found no pointers to the questions I have. I made it in case another dev had an idea about it. I may have missed something, but that's why I asked in the first place. If I believed I had covered all grounds by myself, I wouldn't have asked in the first place.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What you're looking to do seems similar to this question: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2110161
The difference between the webtop and a stand alone installation of Linux won't be that different, mainly it would just be where on the device the OS is installed and how video is handled. That said, I'm not sure about the kernel, specifically the video drivers, since they're intended for Android and may not be compatible with X. AFAIK, Wayland is closer to Android than X is, but Wayland isn't quite ready.
Anyway, assuming you did succeed, what you would end up with would be less like a true desktop (as you'd be pretty much locked into a specific kernel, and therefor any packages limited by it, but it doesn't invalidate the effort), and more like a persistent live CD, since the OS would be installed to an area mounted as read-only (to prevent flash wear), with access to an area that has read/write access, like in Android where you store apps and user files. Overall, it could be fun if you enjoy a challenge and aren't intimidated by soldering and using the JTAG connector.
lehjr said:
What you're looking to do seems similar to this question: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2110161
The difference between the webtop and a stand alone installation of Linux won't be that different, mainly it would just be where on the device the OS is installed and how video is handled. That said, I'm not sure about the kernel, specifically the video drivers, since they're intended for Android and may not be compatible with X. AFAIK, Wayland is closer to Android than X is, but Wayland isn't quite ready.
Anyway, assuming you did succeed, what you would end up with would be less like a true desktop (as you'd be pretty much locked into a specific kernel, and therefor any packages limited by it, but it doesn't invalidate the effort), and more like a persistent live CD, since the OS would be installed to an area mounted as read-only (to prevent flash wear), with access to an area that has read/write access, like in Android where you store apps and user files. Overall, it could be fun if you enjoy a challenge and aren't intimidated by soldering and using the JTAG connector.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, I might have to do soldering anyway. I'm not really intimidated by it and don't really care all that much for phone functionality and such. I'm not even interested all that much in X as my project is more towards transforming it into a handheld gaming (more like emu) device. I don't mind compiling software specifically for the system. The question is pretty low-level in that regard for me. I want to know if I have to do anything with regards to the kernel since it's specific to Android. Given that most emus I know that would run acceptably in a tegra 2 don't really need the GPU, I don't mind just using framebuffer so HW doesn't really interest me.
Lugaidster said:
Actually, I might have to do soldering anyway. I'm not really intimidated by it and don't really care all that much for phone functionality and such. I'm not even interested all that much in X as my project is more towards transforming it into a handheld gaming (more like emu) device. I don't mind compiling software specifically for the system. The question is pretty low-level in that regard for me. I want to know if I have to do anything with regards to the kernel since it's specific to Android. Given that most emus I know that would run acceptably in a tegra 2 don't really need the GPU, I don't mind just using framebuffer so HW doesn't really interest me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Unfortunately, it's going to be one of those areas where you'll have to make an educated guess, since as far as we know, no one has successfully pulled off a straight Linux implementation on the device.
That said, nVidia does have both Android and Linux images for the Ventana dev kit, so it should be possible. In my case, I would compare the source code for their Linux kernel vs the stock Linux kernel vs their closest Android kernel vs the stock Android kernel. The biggest thing is how the the device specific files translate from one kernel to another, because you'll likely need to translate the device specific files for the Atrix in the same manner. The changes may be subtle or they may be drastic. The main thing is to just be able to set the pins properly so you don't release any "magic smoke". Unfortunately, I see no source code for any of nVidia's kernels.
Anyway, that's how I would do it, but I do suspect that someone with more knowledge could find a much simpler approach and hopefully they'll chime in, but this part of the forums isn't the thriving hub of activity it used to be, so I don't know if that will happen any time soon or at all.
lehjr said:
nVidia does have both Android and Linux images for the Ventana dev kit
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Atrix is a Whistler, not a Ventana.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=33289027#post33289027
ravilov said:
Atrix is a Whistler, not a Ventana.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=33289027#post33289027
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the heads up and the link! :highfive:
Yes yes, you may think that I'm crazy for attempting to compile AOSP, but in fact im just obsessed with getting AOSP to work (on my previous device I spent a full year on it without success), thanks to the experience I know much more know about the environment.
I've done several pure aosp builds so far, and they result in a ~280mb system folder, which is kinda the size of aosp I guess (atleast for xxhdpi)
But they end with errors of course, anyways. I used the devices specs with updated overlays,and added dependencies (such as hardware) to the environment.
But since the aosp environment is very mean to new devices its once again a real struggle. as expected, but I like the challenge.
Anyways, Im currently trying out this hybrid-ish environment. which contains the items listed above but with several elements of the AOKP environment added (only the essential ones for compatibility).
Compiling goes so far so good. hope I will get a working build. (don't expect this to happen tho)
Oh and since samsung is releasing the S4 Google Edition (AOSP) soon it must be possible. (the google edition is the qualcomm varian afaik)
More info soon!
I'm going to drop this here for now until I have time to mess with it more.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/android-building/_F67iLDcVzQ
Note: This leads me back to my previous question as to how we are supposed to build with this.
At face value it seems we're only getting fairly close to what we were with other OSRC releases.
Going to look at more later tonight.
Skilled devs can get pure aosp to work properly. It was done for sprints gs3 without using CM code.
Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 2
You don't necessarily need proprietary binaries to be released to build AOSP, although it does make it much easier. Sometimes you have to resort to trial and error and debug tools.
drewX2 said:
You don't necessarily need proprietary binaries to be released to build AOSP, although it does make it much easier. Sometimes you have to resort to trial and error and debug tools.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I disagree completely. Without the prop' libraries and drivers that the OEM has built to manage the board you can most certainly expect the related hardware to fail or be only partially functional at best. Some other 3rd party generic driver would still be required if this example were true. In the good old AOSP days (maguro for example) had roughly a dozen proprietary files required for the device tree to build. With more and more OEMs making different hardware configs and spin-off APIs trying to lock down a lead in the game it has inflated that number greatly. In this instance, for example, S4 requires roughly 165 proprietary files in the vendor/ and device/ tree. Furthermore, with many of those stacks being required to pass for a successful boot complete (audio for example) there is little chance for even semi-functional usage without the required libraries and drivers.
broodplank1337 said:
(edit)...I'm crazy for attempting to compile AOSP...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We're compiling pure AOSP already for this board. I'm not sure what your repo structure looks like but if you are based off a CM or AOKP base clone then you got some work cut out for you. The CM tree compiles completely different than AOSP. All EaglesBlood builds are compiled from our same main branch, which consists entirely of only pure AOSP + our own EB coding. There is no CM codeblock nor anything else polluting (no pun). Since CM and others have some custom hybrid APIs and such you may run into issues that are difficult to resolve or even identify. If you aren't the one committing those patches then it is difficult to know at a glance of what has been heavily CM-ified vs closer to native code; or unless you're very in-tune with CM, gerrit and GIT.
We'll be releasing AOSP 4.2.2 as soon as we get the kernel config where we want it to be. Stay tuned. http://www.eaglesblood.com
oOo B0XeR oOo said:
I disagree completely. Without the prop' libraries and drivers that the OEM has built to manage the board you can most certainly expect the related hardware to fail or be only partially functional at best. Some other 3rd party generic driver would still be required if this example were true. In the good old AOSP days (maguro for example) had roughly a dozen proprietary files required for the device tree to build. With more and more OEMs making different hardware configs and spin-off APIs trying to lock down a lead in the game it has inflated that number greatly. In this instance, for example, S4 requires roughly 165 proprietary files in the vendor/ and device/ tree. Furthermore, with many of those stacks being required to pass for a successful boot complete (audio for example) there is little chance for even semi-functional usage without the required libraries and drivers.
I think you misunderstood what I said. First of all, I am speaking from *experience*. I have ported AOSP to devices without RELEASED proprietary binaries and I have handled every step in porting; from display, audio, to calling, wifi, bt, etc. Released means the manufacturer provides a nice little package for you. I had to in many cases, figure out which libs from a stock rom were needed. Additionally, you can utilize libs from completely different devices as a temporary patch. I am very comfortable with kernel development and the android framework. If you were too, you would know what I am saying is true. Here is one tip, nearly every board is like another (within the same class; eg. MSM8960, APQ8064) with only slight variations (e.g. modem). Once you understand that, it becomes easier.
We're compiling pure AOSP already for this board. I'm not sure what your repo structure looks like but if you are based off a CM or AOKP base clone then you got some work cut out for you. The CM tree compiles completely different than AOSP. All EaglesBlood builds are compiled from our same main branch, which consists entirely of only pure AOSP + our own EB coding. There is no CM codeblock nor anything else polluting (no pun). Since CM and others have some custom hybrid APIs and such you may run into issues that are difficult to resolve or even identify. If you aren't the one committing those patches then it is difficult to know at a glance of what has been heavily CM-ified vs closer to native code; or unless you're very in-tune with CM, gerrit and GIT.
We'll be releasing AOSP 4.2.2 as soon as we get the kernel config where we want it to be. Stay tuned. http://www.eaglesblood.com
I agree with you on some points about CM code, however, you're group has been porting devices that were working or nearly working with base android code. Talk about an easy route. I can see you haven't had to do any hard work yet. Going from 4.1 -> 4.2 on a non google AOSP supported device or a device that has no CM build available for it is a whole different story. How do I know? I've done it. I was the first to build CM for HTC DNA and both CM/AOSP for Oppo Find 5. Next time before you "completely disagree," make sure you know what you're talking about.
Lastly, although I agree with you on some points about CM code, you should give them credit because your stuff is probably based on their stuff more then you lead others to believe; like nearly every other "dev group" out there. And by no means, am I some CM lover (I've had my quarrels with them), but you should give respect and credit to those who make what you do possible.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
See Above.
drewX2 said:
I think you misunderstood what I said. First of all, I am speaking from *experience*. I have ported AOSP to devices without RELEASED proprietary binaries...
...How do I know? I've done it. I was the first to build CM for HTC DNA and both CM/AOSP for Oppo Find 5. Next time before you "completely disagree," make sure you know what you're talking about.
[/QUOTE
Great, hi-five to you, but before making bold assumptions...
http://www.xda-developers.com/android/aosp-jellybean-build-for-the-t-mobile-g2x/
drewX2 said:
...(CM) you should give them credit because your stuff is probably based on their stuff more then you lead others to believe; like nearly every other "dev group" out there. And by no means, am I some CM lover (I've had my quarrels with them),....
See Above.
[/QUOTE
I never suggested anything about CM, they are top-notch. I said we dont use their base code like "every other dev". Sorry you have had quarrels; and there is nothing "probably based off them" as I just told you our repo is straight AOSP & EB.
Likewise you should "know what you're talking about", prior to making assumptions and speculations.
^read above
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Im currently working on this as well...anyone have anymore success? Im currently fighting my way through compile errors...but I would love to be able to atleast get a bootable pure aosp from source...ill keep at it...but if anyone has gotten it yet please help speed up my process and enlighten me on what you did to compile a working aosp
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2
I guess we all are I'm working on one too. Lots of research on correcting errors
Cm10.2 anyone??
Sent from my GT-I9505G using Tapatalk 2
deleted
Wrong post
I did it successfully with help of some external repos
forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2397511
so, ive noticed there are two development sections for this device, and many others. one is 'original development', the other is just 'development'. what gives?!?
i can only figure its one of two things.. either a hardware change during the model run, or that the first section simply became full, and a second 'non original' section needed made for newer material. im probably wrong on both counts tho, right?!
Q
Same question, but never tried to understand at all, searching two forum branches instead of one isn't that hard
Android Development is ment for small changes, let's say you take an existing ROM (i.e: CM11) and you just add a few things like a different launcher or if you port an already existing ROM like MIUI, in reallity you are not "developing" something original, something of your own and so it gets classified under "Android Development".
Now if you take CM sources and start adding different things, new things, create a new ROM based off that, something that is not currently being worked for the phone (take for example AxxionKAT ROM from thatkawaiiguy, he took CM as base and started to add more and more things to his rom. There it becomes "Original Android Development, something fresh .
That's how I get it
Ahhh, that makes sense. Thanks.
Its not searching thats the problem.. its that i like to be sure of what im looking at, and what the difference is.
Sent from my LG-E970 using XDA Free mobile app