Thanks. I haven't clean fetched "Master".. may be that's the issue.
take care, Muthu Ramadoss. http://linkedin.com/in/tellibitz +91-9840348914 http://mobeegal.in - mobile search. redefined. On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Disconnect <[email protected]> wrote: > FYI Master builds right now, even for actual hardware. (It doesn't run so > well due to a bunch of closed-source libraries they can't release.. but > thats just more of the "we'll worry about licensing later" mess.) > > At a minimum, whats out there now is: > Master - cutting edge, community tree (although so far only googs can > commit) - currently (as of a couple days ago) builds fine for g1/adp1 using > the directions on android.com > Master w/ tag "release-1.0" - the tree as it was kinda sorta when rc29/rc30 > were peeled off, but not really. Doesn't build. > Cupcake - laggy internal cutting edge, synced from perforce. still broken > build, and behind master. > Perforce - cutting edge private tree, occasionally synced to cupcake > Product - adp1/g1 tree, stable, tested, running, never to see the light of > day other than as blob updates ('open source' or not..) > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Muthu Ramadoss > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Google has their own internal repo which they haven't synced it up with >> the public repo. Its all a bit confusing now since both master and the >> cupcake branch seems to be broken now. >> >> take care, >> Muthu Ramadoss. >> >> http://linkedin.com/in/tellibitz +91-9840348914 >> http://androidrocks.googlecode.com >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Disconnect <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Its apache-licensed. Just pretend that the upstream is 'equal' and they >>> created a closed-source fork of it. (Since, realistically, thats what >>> happened with the dream product tree. Compounded when they merged it to >>> their p4/cupcake instead of the old master, basically making it forever >>> unreachable.) >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Al Sutton <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> But a group of OHA members made the first deployment where a number of >>>> apps aren't equal (e.g. Market using locked down APIs, 3rd party >>>> diallers being unable to call emergency services, etc.). >>>> >>>> So if the OHAs own members aren't sticking to that idea, why are the OHA >>>> claiming it's one of features of an Android system? >>>> >>>> Al. >>>> >>>> Muthu Ramadoss wrote: >>>> > "All Applications are created Equal" >>>> > >>>> > holds true for all applications created on top of Application >>>> Framework. >>>> > >>>> > It does not mean that the applications created will be open or free! >>>> > >>>> > take care, >>>> > Muthu Ramadoss. >>>> > >>>> > http://linkedin.com/in/tellibitz +91-9840348914 >>>> > http://mobeegal.in - mobile search. redefined. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 7:51 PM, aayush <[email protected] >>>> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > The adage that all applications are created equal cannot hold true >>>> in >>>> > a real commercial rollout by a carrier. >>>> > >>>> > Carriers would want to achieve service differentiation and a >>>> > competitive edge over their peers. So they would always want to >>>> lock >>>> > down some apps to provide them to only their customers. >>>> > If all applications would be equal, what value proposition will >>>> they >>>> > show to their customers ? >>>> > >>>> > So i think, that this statement of application equality does not >>>> hold >>>> > good....no matter how good the intentions may be..the carriers >>>> wont >>>> > tolerate it ! >>>> > >>>> > Aayush >>>> > >>>> > Muthu Ramadoss wrote: >>>> > > I guess "All applications are created equal" will hold true when >>>> > you roll >>>> > > out your own custom Android implementation. If we consider the >>>> G1 >>>> > > implementation of Android, of course the Carrier is going to >>>> > lock down a lot >>>> > > of Apps which the Carrier believes is important enough to be >>>> > locked down for >>>> > > various reasons. >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > take care, >>>> > > Muthu Ramadoss. >>>> > > >>>> > > http://linkedin.com/in/tellibitz +91-9840348914 >>>> > > http://androidrocks.googlecode.com - Android Tutorial. >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Al Sutton <[email protected] >>>> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > Debate on the policy is another (probably lengthy) discussion, >>>> > the fact >>>> > > > is that the policy exists and because of that all apps are not >>>> > equal as >>>> > > > the OHA site claim that "All applications are created equal" >>>> > doesn't >>>> > > > hold up. >>>> > > > >>>> > > > Al. >>>> > > > >>>> > > > Shane Isbell wrote: >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 3:27 AM, Al Sutton >>>> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> > > > > <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> >>>> > wrote: >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > They would need stretch that somewhat and define the >>>> dialler >>>> > > > > application >>>> > > > > as non-core for that to work in relation to the block on >>>> > third party >>>> > > > > diallers calling emergency services. >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > This is one area I agree with Google on. If there is a >>>> > hostile app, >>>> > > > > dialing out false emergency requests, clogging the system, >>>> > people >>>> > > > > could die. Of course, Google deserves all the other crap you >>>> > give >>>> > > > > them, so keep swinging. Maybe some candy will fall out. >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > Shane >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > -- >>>> > > > ====== >>>> > > > Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with >>>> the >>>> > > > company number 6741909. The registered head office is Kemp >>>> House, >>>> > > > 152-160 City Road, London, EC1V 2NX, UK. >>>> > > > >>>> > > > The views expressed in this email are those of the author and >>>> not >>>> > > > necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, >>>> > or it's >>>> > > > subsidiaries. >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > > >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> ====== >>>> Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with the >>>> company number 6741909. The registered head office is Kemp House, >>>> 152-160 City Road, London, EC1V 2NX, UK. >>>> >>>> The views expressed in this email are those of the author and not >>>> necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, or it's >>>> subsidiaries. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Discuss" 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-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
