build/core/main.mk:178: implicitly installing apns-conf_sdk.xml build/core/base_rules.mk:117: *** recovery: MODULE.TARGET.EXECUTABLES.recovery already defined by bootable/recovery. Stop.
That's the exact error. Thanks for the known-issues pointer. take care, Muthu Ramadoss. http://linkedin.com/in/tellibitz +91-9840348914 http://mobeegal.in - mobile search. redefined. On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 8:54 PM, Disconnect <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
