If you disagree that strongly, I can only suggest that you focus your energy on projects whose practical reality you disagree less with. Because, no matter how much you complain about it, dealing with outdated proprietary binaries is the reality of AOSP with ADP1, and anything else is wishful thinking at this point.
Everybody on AOSP is on the same boat, you're not being personally singled out, and whenever I run AOSP code on a device I make a point of starting from the most recent ADP1 image to be sure that I'm seeing the code in the same conditions as anyone else (since anything else would indeed be irrelevant and therefore pointless). I'm as excited as anyone else when I can get it to even get to the home screen, and as unhappy as anyone else when I see how non-functional the result is. I soon return to the emulator for all my AOSP hacking. The down-to-the-floor reality is that, within the entire Cupcake timeframe and especially since the March code drops, it has been impractical to use ADP1 for AOSP contributions, which does indeed limit the real-world extent of the contributions that can be done to only include work that can be done on the emulator. This isn't what anyone on this group (or any of the other official Android groups) wishes for, but this is the reality that we all have to deal with. We're all in the same boat here on this group, Googlers and non-Googlers alike, as a single community, and we're all hitting the same wall of silence regarding AOSP on ADP1. Anyway, I said it earlier already, we knew of this issue before ADP1 was even released, but Google is powerless to resolve the situation. No point asking any Googler on this list or invoking Google as a whole, we can't do a thing about it, we're stuck having to use the same workarounds as you do, dealing with extract-files.sh and all the associated ugliness. We created that monstrosity as the best practical workaround, and if you have better workarounds we're all ears. Debating whether the situation is ideal or not doesn't make anything move forward. The AOSP grass isn't greener in Mountain View. JBQ On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Disconnect <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Jean-Baptiste Queru <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Cross-referencing information from pages like >> http://www.eetindia.co.in/ART_8800550084_1800005_NT_bf139ec3.HTM with >> the list of OHA companies and the list of files extracted as part of >> the process described here >> http://source.android.com/documentation/building-for-dream should >> probably give you a good "first cut" list about which doors to knock >> at. > > These people didn't sell me a phone for platform hacking that was missing > essential pieces. > >> >> Don't believe that Google has source access to those binaries. Just >> like you, we only get opaque binaries, and just like you we're not >> allowed to redistribute them. You wouldn't be reverse-engineering >> Google's work, you'd be reverse-engineering the work done by the >> companies providing those binaries only under NDA and not updating >> them for the community. > > I'd be reverse engineering the work google has done adapting the code to the > new secret binaries. If it helps, consider that it is no different than > trying to write UI guidelines based only on released code, without acces to > the designers. (Guidelines good enough that anyone following them in a > reasonable way will later pass the design test for inclusion in the "open" > platform.) "Hey, this dump included 100 minor UI changes. I wonder how many > of them are mandated and how many are incidental." > >> Like I said, if the notion of working on a platform based on a port >> that relies on outdated proprietary binaries in unappealing to you, >> there are other bits of hardware that are significantly more open than >> the ADP1 and on which you'll be able to maintain an Android port >> without being tied by as many proprietary bits. > > Relying on outdated platform binaries would be fine, of the entire AOSP > relied on them. But it doesn't. The AOSP relies on the commercial binaries, > and you are saying that the "right" answer is to constantly be backporting. > I disagree, strongly. > >> >> JBQ >> >> On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Disconnect <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Jean-Baptiste Queru <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Now, it's up to you to decide whether you want to be constructive, or >> >> whether your interest lies in whining and pointing fingers. We have a >> >> saying in French that goes along the lines of "critique is easy, art >> >> is hard". If you want to permanently stay on the sidelines (or in the >> >> stands) waiting for someone else to deal with problems that you can't >> >> be bothered to tackle yourself, it's your choice. If you want to >> >> actually walk on the field and be part of the action, come on in. >> > >> > Great! Who do I talk to about getting those binaries released so that I >> > can >> > do development and submit patches on an even vaguely even footing with >> > google devs?? (I am pretty sure I know the answer already: nobody. But >> > you >> > seemed to indicate otherwise, so..) >> > >> >> >> >> Your continuous stance toward Google is evidence that you believe that >> >> actions speak louder than words. The ball is now in your camp, >> >> everybody is waiting for your actions. Set your priorities, publish >> >> your roadmaps, deliver on your promises, show everyone how it's done. >> > >> > Yep. And I've -been- acting. I've been releasing working AOSP images for >> > the >> > G1. I've been assisting the people who are going farther with it and >> > doing >> > community images (such as JF and Zinx and Haykuro.) I've been helping >> > people on IRC and the lists deal with both stock and community images >> > since >> > the G1 first went on sale from Tmob. (And unlike you guys, I don't get >> > paid >> > to do it.) >> > >> > (Hell, if you want to measure by code, I even submitted some of the >> > earliest >> > patches - a rough-and-ready bluetooth tethering solution.) >> > >> >> Re-saying what I wrote earlier, one way to participate would be to >> >> un-evolve/down-port the lower layers of Android so that they can >> >> continue running on a given released version of the Dream proprietary >> >> files. If that's not good enough for you, you could also participate >> > >> > Correct, one way to participate is to reverse engineer the work that was >> > done inside google. (I think I've already got enough hands in that pie >> > at >> > the moment though.) Is that really the best thing you can tell the >> > community? "We're sorry, but if you want a -working- phone platform you >> > need >> > to reverse engineer a bunch of stuff for us"..? I mean, the change >> > tracking >> > that is starting to come with the monster code dumps will be a big help >> > there, but still.. >> > >> > >> >> >> >> in the efforts to get Android running on some hardware that's more >> >> open than that, e.g. the Openmoko Freerunner, the Nokia Internet >> >> Tablets, or the Trolltech Greenphone (each of those has advantages and >> >> drawbacks, and I know that there are people already actively working >> >> on the first two). >> >> >> >> JBQ >> >> >> >> On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 7:26 AM, Disconnect <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >> > You have an interesting concept of platform hacking I guess. I don't >> >> > mean >> >> > "running a new image." (Or are you saying that new releases leap, >> >> > fully >> >> > formed, from the head of the android statue and nobody at google does >> >> > any >> >> > development on them? While that would explain some things, I find it >> >> > unlikely. :) ..) >> >> > >> >> > I mean, specifically, putting outside platform developers on the same >> >> > footing (device-wise) as the google developers. If cupcake uses a new >> >> > rild, >> >> > new radio firmware, gl library, or what have you, why do external >> >> > developers >> >> > have to hack and tape to get a working image? It is what the device >> >> > was >> >> > sold >> >> > for! >> >> > >> >> > (Yes. Some platform devs inside google use only the emulator. Thats >> >> > great. >> >> > But for a lot of things, the emulator is very limited - that is why >> >> > platform >> >> > hackers were encouraged to buy an adp1. And realistically, its been >> >> > proven >> >> > pretty well that you can't even do basic app dev on just the emulator >> >> > - >> >> > without testing on a phone, you'll never have a working app.) >> >> > >> >> > On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Romain Guy <[email protected]> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> It isn't behind at the moment since Android 1.5 final has not been >> >> >> released, be it the SDK or firmwares for existing phone. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 6:30 AM, Disconnect >> >> >> <[email protected]> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> > Will the ADP1 "phone for platform hacking" always be behind the >> >> >> > final >> >> >> > releases of the platform? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > That seems .. not good. (Esp since quite a few people bought it to >> >> >> > do >> >> >> > platform work.) >> >> >> > >> >> >> > On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Jean-Baptiste Queru >> >> >> > <[email protected]> >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -The T-Mobile G1 isn't meant to be updated with arbitrary >> >> >> >> versions >> >> >> >> of >> >> >> >> the system. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -If you have an Android Dev Phone 1 (same hardware), the >> >> >> >> proprietary >> >> >> >> files necessary to run 1.5 on it aren't currently available >> >> >> >> anywhere. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> JBQ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Venkatarangan MJ >> >> >> >> <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Does anyone has a good reference of the exact procedure from >> >> >> >> > downloading >> >> >> >> > say >> >> >> >> > Android SDK cupcake version 1.5, building it and finally >> >> >> >> > updating >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> > T >> >> >> >> > G1 >> >> >> >> > Mobile? There are some references like but still may not be >> >> >> >> > very >> >> >> >> > clear >> >> >> >> > to >> >> >> >> > new ones. >> >> >> >> > http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=462512 >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > I have had some references with available images uploaded but >> >> >> >> > not >> >> >> >> > really >> >> >> >> > a >> >> >> >> > good tutorial to do everything ourselves from scratch. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > But I think we need to document it better for the community. I >> >> >> >> > was >> >> >> >> > planning >> >> >> >> > to do one but if any of you know a reference, I thought it >> >> >> >> > would >> >> >> >> > be >> >> >> >> > better I >> >> >> >> > start from there, identify the deficiency and improve on it. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Regards >> >> >> >> > Rangan. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> Jean-Baptiste M. "JBQ" Queru >> >> >> >> Android Engineer, Google. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Questions sent directly to me that have no reason for being >> >> >> >> private >> >> >> >> will likely get ignored or forwarded to a public forum with no >> >> >> >> further >> >> >> >> warning. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> Romain Guy >> >> >> Android framework engineer >> >> >> [email protected] >> >> >> >> >> >> Note: please don't send private questions to me, as I don't have >> >> >> time >> >> >> to provide private support. All such questions should be posted on >> >> >> public forums, where I and others can see and answer them >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Jean-Baptiste M. "JBQ" Queru >> >> Android Engineer, Google. >> >> >> >> Questions sent directly to me that have no reason for being private >> >> will likely get ignored or forwarded to a public forum with no further >> >> warning. >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Jean-Baptiste M. "JBQ" Queru >> Android Engineer, Google. >> >> Questions sent directly to me that have no reason for being private >> will likely get ignored or forwarded to a public forum with no further >> warning. >> >> > > > > > -- Jean-Baptiste M. "JBQ" Queru Android Engineer, Google. Questions sent directly to me that have no reason for being private will likely get ignored or forwarded to a public forum with no further warning. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Beginners" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-beginners?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
