Guest ThrashMan Posted July 2, 2011 Report Share Posted July 2, 2011 Reading this thread, one could be forgiven for thinking it was impossible to extract the original ZTE source again if any modifications have unwanted side effects. Modifying source code is not like eating a cake. For that reason alone......I have no interest in modifying source!! Cake ftw!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest androrphin Posted July 2, 2011 Report Share Posted July 2, 2011 I'm a noob here so please excuse this question if it's lame ! Will this kernel work with CM 7.1.0-RC1 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest k0zmic Posted July 2, 2011 Report Share Posted July 2, 2011 (edited) I'm a noob here so please excuse this question if it's lame ! Will this kernel work with CM 7.1.0-RC1 ? Yes. Use the latest by burstlam as it has more things fixed. Edited July 2, 2011 by k0zmic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fonix232 Posted July 2, 2011 Report Share Posted July 2, 2011 I have to agree with t0mm13b here. Burstlam, you did a great work, but the release of Phoenix_Silver was discussed with many devs, manually patched up, and I believe she and t0mm13b (plus Tom_G, and HCDRJacob, if they helped) put it together with their best knowledge. But, releasing your own just creates fragmentation in the forum. We do not need it yet! Let the fixes come up (you can add your patches OFC, and you can talk with them on the IRC channel), create a common base what works with our phones and provides the same stability as the old .32 code, then I would be the happiest one to see atleast a dozen people do kernel releases (good ones OFC! Not someone noob who recompiled someone other's work!)! So go on, do not fight, and work common, not for yourself only. And this last message goes for everyone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest iashok Posted July 2, 2011 Report Share Posted July 2, 2011 OK, some facts - installed latest /N119/ CM7, replaced with burstlam' kernel form Post #16, replaced libaudio.so from post 5800 here - Wifi is reconnecting well - FM radio working /no RDS/ - SIP and Skype audio routing is correct - It seems the interface is little slow, just an impression - Camera is working well It seems batery life is OK, will report later Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Victor von Zeppelin Posted July 2, 2011 Report Share Posted July 2, 2011 (edited) I have to agree with t0mm13b here. Burstlam, you did a great work, but the release of Phoenix_Silver was discussed with many devs, manually patched up, and I believe she and t0mm13b (plus Tom_G, and HCDRJacob, if they helped) put it together with their best knowledge. But, releasing your own just creates fragmentation in the forum. We do not need it yet! Let the fixes come up (you can add your patches OFC, and you can talk with them on the IRC channel), create a common base what works with our phones and provides the same stability as the old .32 code, then I would be the happiest one to see atleast a dozen people do kernel releases (good ones OFC! Not someone noob who recompiled someone other's work!)! So go on, do not fight, and work common, not for yourself only. And this last message goes for everyone! I feel this has all started due to miscommunication, and fonix gets the point across best. I thought Burstlam was helping you guys out anyway? Edited July 2, 2011 by Victor von Zeppelin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ahngau Posted July 3, 2011 Report Share Posted July 3, 2011 I feel this has all started due to miscommunication, and fonix gets the point across best. I thought Burstlam was helping you guys out anyway? IMHO when an idea is fundamentally flaw, it is still wrong no matter how well you communicate it. Telling somebody to stop work for fear of contaminating the source is a glaring example. wbaw put it well - this is what version control softwares are for. I don't know how burstlam did what he did, but sooner or later, any code has to go through the peer review process to get on the official CM7 tree. If his way of using the 512M ram is not to your liking, great, code your own and see which one can go thru the peer review. The only thing you can demand (or criticize) is that he should set it up on github. May be he is one of the unlucky souls who have a busy day job which prevent him from setting the thing up? Who knows. Before he publishes it, his work is a proof of concept, no matter it is a quick and dirty hack or a beautiful piece of clever coding, it shows that 512M can be used, camera can work better. Programming is very much akin to other creative works, it comes in bursts. Don't ever try to stop a programmer when he/she is feverishly working, because when he cools down, he may cool down all the way and be no good to the project any more. This goes true for both paid or unpaid programmers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wbaw Posted July 3, 2011 Report Share Posted July 3, 2011 (edited) ahngau said it well. I've never heard anything so ridiculous as 'contaminating source code' by fixing obvious bugs, it's not like you can't still download the original broken version if you don't believe it was done correctly. There's no misunderstandings here, it is an obviously flawed concept. You're just trying to be elitist & prevent other people from contributing. Stop being idiots, put it all up on Github & post the link here. ZTE should be doing that, but they aren't. Edited July 3, 2011 by wbaw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest t0mm13b Posted July 3, 2011 Report Share Posted July 3, 2011 (edited) ahngau said it well. I've never heard anything so ridiculous as 'contaminating source code' by fixing obvious bugs, it's not like you can't still download the original broken version if you don't believe it was done correctly. There's no misunderstandings here, it is an obviously flawed concept. You're just trying to be elitist & prevent other people from contributing. Stop being idiots, put it all up on Github & post the link here. ZTE should be doing that, but they aren't. You stop being the idiot here and attempting to botch up and possibly degrade the newer kernel sources to be on par with what's currently in place with CM7 Nightlies for so long! Get off your high-horse wbaw and realize I was saying that with good intentions to ensure that we have a good kernel not a partially functioning/broken/half baked with patches coming from the old kernel.... Nothing elitist here - you ninny or go back to the old CM7 kernel if you want and stop being such an elitist yourself - your attitude clearly stinks - enough - and don't you dare accuse us of sabotaging or what-ever is it you think in your head by way of that pm you sent me yesterday! As a FYI, a notable respected member agreed: 17:00 <@t0mm13b> that thread went up in flames on modaco 17:00 <@hecatae> t0mm13b i know 17:00 <@t0mm13b> hecatae: was I wrong? 17:00 <@t0mm13b> be honest with me :) 17:00 <@t0mm13b> was I wrong in what I said? :rolleyes: 17:00 <@hecatae> t0mm13b you were correct 17:01 <@hecatae> wbaw did not get what burstlam had done P.S: acpuclock.c from TomG's was copied over and the oled driver - nothing more :rolleyes: Edited July 3, 2011 by t0mm13b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest johnsmithx Posted July 3, 2011 Report Share Posted July 3, 2011 Once more again: as soon as you start distributing binaries of GPL licensed work, you must distribute the source codes as well. Period. The license doesn't say "maybe" or "only if t0mm13b thinks it's any good". Your opinion is totally irrelevant, t0mm13b. You don't have the power to decide whether someone may or may not stick to the legal contract. And neither it's your business to judge what people will do with such source codes, if it's useful for them or if they should or should not get it at all. It doesn't matter what you or wbaw or anyone else say. It doesn't matter what any "respected member" thinks. It doesn't matter who consider himself an elitist. The license states it all and very clearly. If you are not willing to comply, you are violating the law and you are not allowed to use GPL work. Encouraging someone to violate the legal contract is shameful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kol0bok Posted July 3, 2011 Report Share Posted July 3, 2011 Once more again: as soon as you start distributing binaries of GPL licensed work, you must distribute the source codes as well. Period. ... Encouraging someone to violate the legal contract is shameful. I can only repeat that. This whole thread is a mess. Here are some random thoughts (from someone having contributed to free software during the last decade, believe it or not). @burstslam: please open another thread for your fork, and make sure it's visibly distinguishable from the main kernel or development/candidate kernel. Hijacking other people's thread is the opposite of good manners. @Phoenix_Silver, @burstslam: you have to publish your source. It's not a question of whether you like it or not. Since you joined the COPPGB (club of people publishing GPLed binaries) you should have read the license before. I, for one, consider a simple patch with .config sufficient but you failed to provide even that. @Phoenix_Silver, @t0mm13b: please stop throwing fire balls and start using appropriate wording. "contaminating", huh? It's not like he's throwing ashes with plutonium which lands in front of your house. What you can expect from him is opensourcing his stuff, that's all for now. @t0mm13b, @wbaw: the hot topic you are discussing (PM?) should better stay there. Maybe one of you is a sociopath, or both, or none, many people here simply don't care. I really suggest to keep doing what you are best at and not to try to fix the other's wagon without necessity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wbaw Posted July 3, 2011 Report Share Posted July 3, 2011 (edited) I don't come here for all the insults, arguments & other crap. I'm getting pretty close to my limit for tolerating that stuff. All I am asking for is for the kernel source & any modifications that you've made to it in order to compile these binaries (including Burstlam's version) to be published somewhere. Ideally somewhere like Github. Edited July 3, 2011 by wbaw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phoenix Silver Posted July 3, 2011 Report Share Posted July 3, 2011 I don't come here for all the insults, arguments & other crap. I'm getting pretty close to my limit for tolerating that stuff. All I am asking for is for the kernel source & any modifications that you've made to it in order to compile these binaries (including Burstlam's version) to be published somewhere. Ideally somewhere like Github. don't know what you mean all my sources are in my github Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest t0mm13b Posted July 3, 2011 Report Share Posted July 3, 2011 Flibblesan: Please lock this thread and close it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Simon O Posted July 3, 2011 Report Share Posted July 3, 2011 I'm gonna close this childish thread. MoDaCo is a fun and friendly place, not a place for childish arguments. If you are releasing compiled kernels based on this code then you must make at the very least provide the changed files. Ideally make the code available on github or another such website as this encourages others to participate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts