• Announcements

    • Reminder - MoDaCo position on illegal content   07/30/15

      ILLEGAL CONTENT I'd like to just reaffirm MoDaCo's position regarding piracy and illegal content in the light of some recent questions / postings. Posts will be censored by myself or my moderation team if the contain or link to: Illegal / pirated / cracked software or sites that host such softwareNintendo emulators / ROMs or sites hosting them (in light of Nintendo's legal stance)CUSTOM ROMS You may discuss and post links to custom device ROMs on MoDaCo, provided the following rules are adhered to: ROMs must not contain any illegal 3rd party software (this includes trial versions included without permission)ROMs must give full credit to the original authorISSUES If you have any issues with this policy, please contact PaulOBrien directly via PM.
    • Reminder: Selling items on the forum directly is not allowed   07/30/15

      Please note that selling items on the forum directly is not allowed by the forum rules. There is a forum for eBay auctions whereby you can list the items on eBay and link to them there. This is the ONLY forum for this type of activity. You may also advertise links to the eBay forum in your signature. Please note that selling directly in contravention of these rules will result in a warning / suspension / ban.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Kernel Sources

10 posts in this topic

Posted

I'd like your input on this

To prevent fragmentation of the kernel source tree... why not combine the kernel tree to be identical across the board... I'm using one version of the kernel tree, Paul of Modaco ROM is using a different version, would be sure Sebastien is using yet a different version... so the disorganization of the source tree can lead to confusion especially for kernel tweakers...

So my question is to the ROM makers:

Is this a viable route to take - have one kernel tree, but with different branches for each of the different ROM's?

It would be more beneficial for the community and more importantly, try eliminate the so called magic word pertaining to Android "fragmentation" of different kernel sources for different ROMs...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I'd like your input on this

To prevent fragmentation of the kernel source tree... why not combine the kernel tree to be identical across the board... I'm using one version of the kernel tree, Paul of Modaco ROM is using a different version, would be sure Sebastien is using yet a different version... so the disorganization of the source tree can lead to confusion especially for kernel tweakers...

So my question is to the ROM makers:

Is this a viable route to take - have one kernel tree, but with different branches for each of the different ROM's?

It would be more beneficial for the community and more importantly, try eliminate the so called magic word pertaining to Android "fragmentation" of different kernel sources for different ROMs...

I believe that someone (In not good with names) had created a github of the 3(4) versions of the kernel source we got from ZTE, I think they might also of added some of the previous fixes needed to get it to compile... tho I just found out that KK has a different set of fixes that lets it work with TFT screens....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I'm a little surprised by the impression being of rivalry, rather than co-operation.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I've posted my fixes several times in this forums both for the 2.1 and the 2.2 kernel. But a github is what we should use but I've been a bit busy with fixing other things in my ROMs and I haven't done any more kernel changes since adding the overclocking and stuff to the 2.2 kernel.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I'm a little surprised by the impression being of rivalry, rather than co-operation.

Its my thinking exactly... different sources everywhere scattered about....

Some are private, take AR6000 driver in this instance.... no known source for it in a GPL kernel.... :D

Some such as Modaco ROM has it and not the source published... wonder why? ;)

Its restrictive and holding back instead of being open which is against the spirit of open source and GPL... :)

I am amazed at the lack of cohesion and co-operation... ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Some such as Modaco ROM has it and not the source published... wonder why? :D

Its restrictive and holding back instead of being open which is against the spirit of open source and GPL... :)

Well about 2.2 ROMs, earlier all devs (including MoDaCo roms) were using prebuilt kernels. Custom kernels are only 2 weeks or so old, we should really give the devs some time to settle down

I am amazed at the lack of cohesion and co-operation... ;)

Regarding 2.1 ROMs, I guess there might be some *ahem*competition*ahem* going on earlier. But now when 2.2 source is here and most of old 2.1 ROMs are abandoned, I'd also request devs to upload their fixed kernels to help newbies learn kernel development and experiment with new patches...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Asfaik NO ar6000 drivers has been released by ZTE. I've tried to make several other AR6000 drivers (that I found on the net) work against or kernel without success. We are all using the ar6000.ko kernel modules ZTE compiled and distributed with the ROMs.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The guy who setup the github (JonV?) said he was happy to copy everyones changes into there so either send him your changes or ask him to give you access to modify the repository directly. We really need to keep a consistent source tree, it's bad enough that ZTE lose track of what they have done!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The guy who setup the github (JonV?) said he was happy to copy everyones changes into there so either send him your changes or ask him to give you access to modify the repository directly. We really need to keep a consistent source tree, it's bad enough that ZTE lose track of what they have done!

i actually think we should keep the zte kernals seperate to the costom ones . i have created a github for the custom/fixed kernals pm me and ill send you details to add your kernal to it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

i actually think we should keep the zte kernals seperate to the costom ones . i have created a github for the custom/fixed kernals pm me and ill send you details to add your kernal to it.

There might be something getting lost in translation here, but I thought that the "custom" 2.2 kernels, were ALL compiled from customisations of the source released by ZTE.

And the important thing to do before it gets impossibly complicated, is to put all of those customisations' source code in a proper relation to the original source and to each other.

The only time a branch in the primary pathway NEEDS to occur, is if people knowingly want to go in different directions on specific functionality.

Right now,isn't it fair to say that there is still a bit of basic stabilisation, control and understanding to be done?

Edited by oh!dougal
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

MoDaCo is part of the MoDaCo.network, © Paul O'Brien 2002-2015. MoDaCo uses IntelliTxt technology.