If your crash is during recovery stuff, http://source.android.com/known-issues lists the fix: If, after a recent repo sync of the master branch, your build fails with an error like this:
build/core/base_rules.mk:117: *** recovery/amend: MODULE.HOST.EXECUTABLES.amend already defined by bootable/recovery/amend. Stop. (or a similar complaint about something under recovery or bootloader/legacy), your client probably has extra copies of a few projects in their old locations. You should be able to fix the problem by deleting them: *# Before deleting, be sure that these directories don't contain any files that you don't want to lose* rm -rf recovery bootloader Or, you can delete your existing client and re-run "repo init". Clients created after the initial merge from cupcake to master should not have this problem. On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Muthu Ramadoss <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
