Re: [Gta04-owner] QtMoko2

[Sven Dyroff]

Hello Nikolaus,

> The question is if you are searching for the right thing.

I already found it. More than 12 years ago by accident in the Nokia 6233. 
Then it turned out that some phones from Sony were also affected, but not 
such severe. For this reason I know which detectors are needed to find it. 
It's nothing that a healthy reasonable person ever would expect, 
especially not in a phone.

> It may just be a honey-pot for you

I wouldn't call this involuntarily horror trip a honey-pot.

>  and the really rogue things are hidden and undetectable...

Indeed it was just by accident that I stumbled over it.

> This is why I still hold my claim that you can't detect all such 
activities and not by simple means like the neo900 does.

I'm talking about exactly ONE of such activities. No clue how much more 
shit had been stuffed inside it. But it would contradict all experiences 
that if there's one, that there will not be more.

> IAW: if you have to cross a swamp don't try to dry it but use a boat or 
helicopter.

You joker! What do you think why I bought a GTA04A4 from you and are now 
asking for a Neo900 ???

Best regards
   Sven
 
 ___
Gta04-owner mailing list
Gta04-owner@goldelico.com
http://lists.goldelico.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/gta04-owner

Re: [Gta04-owner] QtMoko2

[H. Nikolaus Schaller]

Hi Sven,

> Am 18.04.2019 um 17:33 schrieb Sven Dyroff :
> 
> Hello Nikolaus, 
> 
> > Well, this will give 99% of the time false positives, at least initially. 
> 
> yes, indeed! That is called apprentice's due. Or a German word translated in 
> English: If you do planing, you'll produce shavings. 
> 
> > My key argument is that it may not be possible to learn by trial and error 
> > how to distinguish 
> > because the distinguishing information is missing... 
> 
> Here's a little difference between us both: I know exactly for what I'm 
> searching for. But no more comment to this.

The question is if you are searching for the right thing. It may just be a 
honey-pot for you and the really rogue things are hidden and undetectable...
It could use steganography.

This is why I still hold my claim that you can't detect all such activities and 
not by simple means like the neo900 does.

IAW: if you have to cross a swamp don't try to dry it but use a boat or 
helicopter.

> > To give a specific example: how can a current consumption detector or RF 
> > activity measurement distinguish 
> > between a cell handover which leaks 2-3 bytes private data from one without 
> > sending that. IMHO, a good 
> > detector should be able to report exactly that. 
> 
> In this case you need some completely different detectors, located 
> additionally outside of the phone. But no more comment. 

There is one more thing: communication does not end at the phone. It continues 
through networks and to the remote end.
This is the area where you and your device(s) has no control over. This is why 
end2end security is so important.

To some extent it ends in the trivial cognition that the only safe 
communication is the one you are not doing :)

> 
> > Therefore I believe (yes it is also a believe :-) more in encryption 
> > technology than the extra hardware planned for the Neo900. 
> 
> This believe is not justified. We all know Moore’s law. As long as this is 
> still valid, everything that will be encrypted today can be decrypted later. 

Not necessarily. There are ideas around to solve this problem as well, e.g. 
quantum-cryptography.

And: Moore's law is not a physical law. It will come to an end in not too far 
future.
Some even say it already ended 10 years ago and nobody did notice:


https://spectrum.ieee.org/nanoclast/semiconductors/devices/what-globalfoundries-retreat-really-means

Yes, computing power world-wide raises and raises, even if chips don't shrink 
as fast as the past 60 years.
So if something is encrypted by a key strength that needs 20% of the world-wide 
computing power for 1 year,
you are almost safe :) Because only 5 encrypted files are decrypted per year...

> 
> 
> > On the other hand, what Outlook does the Linux kernel have? 
> 
> Regularly fixed release dates! Never underestimate this! I talked about 
> synchronizing individual fun experiences. 

Ok, we can do that for QtMoko2 as well - if there are enough new contributions.
Without such, we can only re-release the last release every week...

BR,
Nikolaus


___
Gta04-owner mailing list
Gta04-owner@goldelico.com
http://lists.goldelico.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/gta04-owner

Re: [Gta04-owner] QtMoko2

[H. Nikolaus Schaller]

need to place milestones and you need to 
> make transparent if or how much they have been reached in order to prevent 
> exactly that diffusing that you have here in this project.

Here again, Linux kernel has no milestones if taken in total. Yes, some 
subprojects and development groups have their own milestones, but it does not 
seem widespread. Things are developed and discussed and developed over time 
without schedule. And at some point of time it appears to be "good enough" to 
the maintainers and then it is integrated to the benefit of everyone.

So they have a central repository and a maintainer organization for quality 
gates, but that is all.

I don't know how other big projects work, so this may be an exception.

> Once again I claim that it was a failure to declare it as an project for 
> arbitrary tinkering on anything that vaguely looks or acts like a phone. 
> 
> > Well, my vision for QtMoko2 would be: 
> > 
> > * modernized base: latest kernels, latest development tools, latest Debian 
> > as basis 
> > * remove bugs - just make it work out-of-the-box 
> > * modularized: just apt-get install what you want to have (or even write a 
> > GUI app for that - sort of an Appstore) 
> > * runs on different hardware (existing and upcoming) 
> > 
> > IMHO a lot of aspects to work for. 
> 
> +1 
> 
> > In the early days, the benefit of QtMoko was to get something which did not 
> > exist before (besides iOS 1.0 and Android 0.5). 
> 
> Ooops. Did I mess up something? As far as I know OpenMoko was the first 
> smartphone on the market and Apple, Google and Co. did unscrupulous 
> cherrypicking from its ideas. Am I wrong here? 

Almost (although I would prefer the opposite).

Apple did develop the iPhone in parallel and did announce the iPhone 1 on 9. 
January 2007 just weeks after OpenMoko announced the GTA01 (November 2006). If 
you watch the iPhone announcement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGoM_wVrwng 
it shows how far ahead they already were with respect to user interface and 
device concept design.

That such devices are to come was "almost in the air" in that year. Only Google 
came a little later with Android (September 2008). I also know from well 
informed sources that Siemens mobile did have a touch screen smartphone behind 
the curtain in 2006 shown to telecom operators. And not to forget that there 
already were Windows CE Pocket PC Phone Edition based PDA/Phone hybrids since 
2003 (e.g. HP iPAQ h6315) and Sharp did experiment with integrating GSM into 
their Zaurus series (it was already available with external CF GSM cards - I am 
still in possession of one). If we are looking for the really first 
"smartphone" it was IMHO the Nokia 9000 communicator from 1996. But none of the 
modern giants did wait for OpenMoko to trigger their development. 
Unfortunately. The only difference which still remains is the openness.

And that is where we are back to QtMoko2. It shares a lot of similarities in 
user interface design with iOS and Android, but is fully open! It only lacks a 
good AppStore - and the software quality and maintainance level. The latter is 
the reason why you can't give a QtMoko device to your Grandma - because it does 
not work smooth enough for connecting with the Grandchildren.

BR,
Nikolaus


> 
> Best regards 
>Sven 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Von:"H. Nikolaus Schaller"  
> An:List for communicating with real GTA04 owners 
>  
> Datum:17.04.2019 20:48 
> Betreff:Re: [Gta04-owner] QtMoko2 
> Gesendet von:"Gta04-owner"  
> 
> 
> Hi Sven,
> 
> > Am 17.04.2019 um 20:31 schrieb Sven Dyroff :
> >
> > Hello Nicolaus,
> >
> > > Well, I don't fear the modem.
> >
> > I do. And I exactly know why.
> >
> > > As soon as you want to make use of it you have to turn it on and accept 
> > > that it is not trustworthy and can't be.
> >
> > Neo900 planned a couple of stuff that would have domesticated that beast at 
> > least up to a certain level. Such smart things like measuring its power 
> > consumption and validate if it's reasonable compared with its current 
> > instructed actions with the option to automatically switch it off.
> 
> Well, I have my own opinion on this...
> It is: this stuff is useless.
> 
> The reason is that nobody can test if these detectors really work.
> To test a fire alarm you must make some smoke. But how can you trigger the 
> modem to make rogue activities to check if they are detected?
> 
> >
> > > As long as it is a separate one connected through e.g. USB and some AT 
> > > commands for control.
> >
> > We all agree that this is essential. But I clai

Re: [Gta04-owner] QtMoko2

[Sven Dyroff]

Hello Nikolaus,

>> Neo900 planned a couple of stuff that would have domesticated that 
beast at least up to a certain level.
>> Such smart things like measuring its power consumption and validate if 
it's reasonable compared with
>> its current instructed actions with the option to automatically switch 
it off.
>
> Well, I have my own opinion on this...
> It is: this stuff is useless.
>
> The reason is that nobody can test if these detectors really work.
> To test a fire alarm you must make some smoke. But how can you trigger 
the modem to make rogue activities to check if they are detected?

I completely disagree!

The fact that the fundamental nature of rogue activities is that they 
CANNOT be triggered by you, because the roguishness persist exactly in the 
fact that it will be triggered by others, consequently results in the NEED 
for exactly this stuff.

The proceeding is quite simple: You claim anything to be weird that you 
don't understand. Just an ordinary trial-and-error approach. And this 
stuff is exactly what you need for that!

>> It just needs a look behind the big firewall of China. I claim the 
situation there is already apocalyptic.
>> And it's no dream anymore. It's already damned reality.
>
> Yes, I know. But that is not a technological issue. Technology was 
second. The situation is there for 30 years or more...

The book "The Shockwave Rider" meanwhile is more than 40 years old and the 
described scenario is independent from any concrete political situation. 
It rather depicts a general interplay between evolution of technology on 
the one hand and degenerating of freedom of society on the other hand. So 
there's no reason not to fear that this could also happen to us. In fact 
it's just a question of time.

>>> Therefore we simply must restart with something as a big team.
>>
>> Yes, indeed. But you'll get such a big team only if you can provide a 
clear aim.
>> One of the last Sourceforge Newsletters provided a very interesting 
article about
>> the needs how to build a good and effective Open Source team.
>
> Yes, I remember similar articles. A key aspect is that people must see a 
benefit with the results.
> Either a personal for hobbyists (could be learning something, 
appreciation, presenting as a good
> software developer) or a commercial one (saves money for the company 
they are working for).

I heavily doubt that a pure materialistic benefit is the reason for the 
need of a clear outlook. Instead of that I assume that the real need for 
it is a result out of the individual fun factor of programming: You need a 
means for synchronizing all the individuals in some way. So you need to 
place milestones and you need to make transparent if or how much they have 
been reached in order to prevent exactly that diffusing that you have here 
in this project. Once again I claim that it was a failure to declare it as 
an project for arbitrary tinkering on anything that vaguely looks or acts 
like a phone.

> Well, my vision for QtMoko2 would be:
>
> * modernized base: latest kernels, latest development tools, latest 
Debian as basis
> * remove bugs - just make it work out-of-the-box
> * modularized: just apt-get install what you want to have (or even write 
a GUI app for that - sort of an Appstore)
> * runs on different hardware (existing and upcoming)
>
> IMHO a lot of aspects to work for.

+1

> In the early days, the benefit of QtMoko was to get something which did 
not exist before (besides iOS 1.0 and Android 0.5).

Ooops. Did I mess up something? As far as I know OpenMoko was the first 
smartphone on the market and Apple, Google and Co. did unscrupulous 
cherrypicking from its ideas. Am I wrong here?

Best regards
   Sven
 
 



Von:"H. Nikolaus Schaller" 
An: List for communicating with real GTA04 owners 

Datum:  17.04.2019 20:48
Betreff:Re: [Gta04-owner] QtMoko2
Gesendet von:   "Gta04-owner" 


Hi Sven,

> Am 17.04.2019 um 20:31 schrieb Sven Dyroff :
>
> Hello Nicolaus,
>
> > Well, I don't fear the modem.
>
> I do. And I exactly know why.
>
> > As soon as you want to make use of it you have to turn it on and 
accept that it is not trustworthy and can't be.
>
> Neo900 planned a couple of stuff that would have domesticated that beast 
at least up to a certain level. Such smart things like measuring its power 
consumption and validate if it's reasonable compared with its current 
instructed actions with the option to automatically switch it off.

Well, I have my own opinion on this...
It is: this stuff is useless.

The reason is that nobody can test if these detectors really work.
To test a fire alarm you must make some smoke. But how can you trigger the 
modem to make rogue activities to check if they are detected?

>
> > As long as it is a separate one conn

Re: [Gta04-owner] QtMoko2

[H. Nikolaus Schaller]

Hi Sven,

> Am 17.04.2019 um 20:31 schrieb Sven Dyroff :
> 
> Hello Nicolaus, 
> 
> > Well, I don't fear the modem. 
> 
> I do. And I exactly know why. 
> 
> > As soon as you want to make use of it you have to turn it on and accept 
> > that it is not trustworthy and can't be. 
> 
> Neo900 planned a couple of stuff that would have domesticated that beast at 
> least up to a certain level. Such smart things like measuring its power 
> consumption and validate if it's reasonable compared with its current 
> instructed actions with the option to automatically switch it off. 

Well, I have my own opinion on this...
It is: this stuff is useless.

The reason is that nobody can test if these detectors really work.
To test a fire alarm you must make some smoke. But how can you trigger the 
modem to make rogue activities to check if they are detected?

> 
> > As long as it is a separate one connected through e.g. USB and some AT 
> > commands for control. 
> 
> We all agree that this is essential. But I claim that this is by far not 
> enough. With the GTA04 you just had good luck with your modem choice by 
> accident. 
> 
> > At least in the dreams of some IoT evangelists. 
> ... 
> > Well, I don't share your pessimism and apocalyptic view here... 
> 
> It just needs a look behind the big firewall of China. I claim the situation 
> there is already apocalyptic. And it's no dream anymore. It's already damned 
> reality. 

Yes, I know. But that is not a technological issue. Technology was second. The 
situation is there for 30 years or more...

> > Especially if it seems to end in a "we can't do anything about it". 
> > I believe we can do something. It is not easy and does not go over night. 
> > But small steps are small steps if they go to the right direction. 
> 
> Just ask Chinese activists how much they can do. 
> 
> > Therefore we simply must restart with something as a big team. 
> 
> Yes, indeed. But you'll get such a big team only if you can provide a clear 
> aim. One of the last Sourceforge Newsletters provided a very interesting 
> article about the needs how to build a good and effective Open Source team.

Yes, I remember similar articles. A key aspect is that people must see a 
benefit with the results. Either a personal for hobbyists (could be learning 
something, appreciation, presenting as a good software developer) or a 
commercial one (saves money for the company they are working for).

In the early days, the benefit of QtMoko was to get something which did not 
exist before (besides iOS 1.0 and Android 0.5).

> Unfortunately I don't have it anymore. But I remember that a clear outlook 
> was one of the basic requirements. 

Well, my vision for QtMoko2 would be:

* modernized base: latest kernels, latest development tools, latest Debian as 
basis
* remove bugs - just make it work out-of-the-box
* modularized: just apt-get install what you want to have (or even write a GUI 
app for that - sort of an Appstore)
* runs on different hardware (existing and upcoming)

IMHO a lot of aspects to work for.

> 
> Best regards 
>Sven 
> 
> P.S.: Did I already mention at any time that I like QtMoko very much?;-) 

Not that I am aware of :):)

BR,
Nikolaus

___
Gta04-owner mailing list
Gta04-owner@goldelico.com
http://lists.goldelico.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/gta04-owner

Re: [Gta04-owner] QtMoko2

[Sven Dyroff]

Hello Nicolaus,

> Well, I don't fear the modem.

I do. And I exactly know why.

> As soon as you want to make use of it you have to turn it on and accept 
that it is not trustworthy and can't be.

Neo900 planned a couple of stuff that would have domesticated that beast 
at least up to a certain level. Such smart things like measuring its power 
consumption and validate if it's reasonable compared with its current 
instructed actions with the option to automatically switch it off.

> As long as it is a separate one connected through e.g. USB and some AT 
commands for control.

We all agree that this is essential. But I claim that this is by far not 
enough. With the GTA04 you just had good luck with your modem choice by 
accident.

> At least in the dreams of some IoT evangelists.
...
> Well, I don't share your pessimism and apocalyptic view here...

It just needs a look behind the big firewall of China. I claim the 
situation there is already apocalyptic. And it's no dream anymore. It's 
already damned reality.

> Especially if it seems to end in a "we can't do anything about it".
> I believe we can do something. It is not easy and does not go over 
night.
> But small steps are small steps if they go to the right direction.

Just ask Chinese activists how much they can do.

> Therefore we simply must restart with something as a big team.

Yes, indeed. But you'll get such a big team only if you can provide a 
clear aim. One of the last Sourceforge Newsletters provided a very 
interesting article about the needs how to build a good and effective Open 
Source team. Unfortunately I don't have it anymore. But I remember that a 
clear outlook was one of the basic requirements.

Best regards
   Sven

P.S.: Did I already mention at any time that I like QtMoko very much? ;-)
 
 
___
Gta04-owner mailing list
Gta04-owner@goldelico.com
http://lists.goldelico.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/gta04-owner

Re: [Gta04-owner] QtMoko2

[H. Nikolaus Schaller]

Hi Sven,

> Am 17.04.2019 um 16:09 schrieb Sven Dyroff :
> 
> Hello Nicolaus, 
> 
> > So let's people popup here and tell they want to help to continue QtMoko! 
> 
> but the question is: On which hardware? 

Whatever they want to have it running on. Original QtMoko did run on PC as well 
and within qemu. So missing hardware is not really an excuse to not work on the 
code.

But a small hint about hardware: As you know, I am working on a GTA15 (aka 
PyraPhone). This will be able to run all LetuxOS software, including QtMoko2. I 
do have not much spare time to work on it, so I can only promise that it is 
done when it is done and there is nothing new to really show around since I 
presented a first concept a while ago.

> > As far as I know the Neo900 project has starved to death. 
> 
> this is the basic problem. GTA04 cannot work with 4G and we all know that 2G 
> as well as 3G frequencies will be switched off in the next couple of years 
> due to the needs for 5G.

Yes, but that is still 3-4 years in the future. 2G is said to live even longer 
since 4G telephony isn't good in rural areas. 5G may change that of course. But 
if I look at my family, nobody has a 4G tariff... So switching to 5G will 
really take a while.

> So GTA04 has no long-term future anymore. 
> 
> Not to mention all the soldering problems with GTA04A5. 

Well, yes. I might finally find time to try another repair attempt. But still 
this will only give 30 devices at maximum. Some components (e.g. speakers) do 
no longer exist for making more of them.

> Neo900 would have been the consequent successor for the GTA04, because it was 
> the only project that reflected that in order to build a mobile phone that 
> you can trust to the most crucial thing is the modem. This project planned to 
> take precautions for every nastiness of which we know about at least since 
> Edward Snowden for driving its 4G modem. This still wouldn't have been 
> effective against some nastinesses of which even Edward Snowden didn't know 
> about, but that's another theme. 
> 
> In my eyes all other projects like Librem5 are only bullshit. Their only 
> purpose is to cause confusion and to deflect from the basic problem: The 
> modem! 

Well, I don't fear the modem. As soon as you want to make use of it you have to 
turn it on and accept that it is not trustworthy and can't be.
Next, it does not work on its own. As long as it is a separate one connected 
through e.g. USB and some AT commands for control.
Key is IMHO End2End encryption for secure communication. Then you can use any 
untrusted channel and the modem is just one such channel.
So this is a matter of which higher level application software we use. Not the 
hardware.

> But Neo900 died and noone knows to where all the money has gone to that they 
> collected. 
> 
> And meanwhile times have changed to be even worse: Not only that people don't 
> consider about the trustworthiness of their phone. No, they now even buy 
> phones and watches that measure their health state, by constantly 
> transmitting data about heartbeat, temperature, skin resistance and so on to 
> many fancy servers all around the world. Noone of them worries about the 
> possible consequences. So we're consequently walking into scenarios like 
> these: 
> 
> The GPS of your phone transmits that you entered a supermarket.

Well, it does not even need GPS for doing that. The WLAN chip can scan for 
neighboring WLAN routers and send a list of those SSIDs to a central server 
that has a big database of Router-SSIDs. As soon as someone else had turned on 
GPS in such a situation, the database can contain the location...

This is probably something we can't avoid. Well, we can if there is no client 
software for this on the device.

> The health sensors suddenly transmit that your heartbeat and your temperature 
> is rising and your skin resistance is falling. Some fancy server transmits an 
> alert message to the security of the supermarket because it assumes that you 
> have stolen something. They come to you in order to search your clothes and 
> don't believe you that you only got a hay fever attac at the flower storage 
> rack. 

:) Yes, that is the new world. At least in the dreams of some IoT evangelists. 
Well, they are looking every day for new markets. It is their job...

> So who wants still support QtMoko2? 

Everyone who does want to know a little more of how the device works. And be 
able to configure and enable/disable services on demand.

> Perhaps best thing would be to read the book "The Shockwave Rider" from John 
> Brunner (again) and by this time reconsider that mankind manged to organize 
> itself without mobile phone for thousands of years: 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shockwave_Rider 
> 
> The picture on the cover of the German version already tells everything, so I 
> attached it... 

Well, I don't share your pessimism and apocalyptic view here... Especially if 
it seems to end in a "we can't do 

Re: [Gta04-owner] qtmoko2 crosscompilation

[Belisko Marek]

Hi Nikolaus,

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 11:47 AM, H. Nikolaus Schaller
 wrote:
> Hi Marek,
>
>> Am 13.04.2018 um 11:32 schrieb Belisko Marek :
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I tried to find some valuable info about qtmoko2 crosscompilation on
>> PC (not native on arm board). in README it's written it's not
>> supported but there are anyway some steps how to do that. I was able
>> to cross-compile qtopia on my ubuntu 16.04 pc but it fails when
>> compile qtmoko. Kust want to ask if anybody here have some ideas or
>> tried to do the same and can share some knowledge. Thanks a lot.
>
> what I had tried is:
>
> http://git.goldelico.com/?p=gta04-qtmoko.git;a=blob;f=README;h=539a8c41dddc9f726641e1d1228d6a548a6a3f53;hb=e8a920c0c4eaef02a060af138f6bec80054bb517#l76
OK thanks I'll look.
>
> i.e. without chroot. It looks really straightforward and to be the right 
> thing.
>
> But I failed in finding the correct cross-compiler binary for wheezy.
> This is when I decided to move to the native build because there is a wheezy 
> compatible (non-cross-)gcc.
I installed amr-gcc/g++-4.7 from apt and it was working fine. I cannot
find place where it's hardcoded to 4.7 though (to have possibility to
change to something newer).
>
> So which cross-compiler do you use to compile qtopia?
>
> BR,
> Nikolaus
>
>>
>> BR,
>>
>> marek
>>
>> --
>> as simple and primitive as possible
>> -
>> Marek Belisko - OPEN-NANDRA
>> Freelance Developer
>>
>> Ruska Nova Ves 219 | Presov, 08005 Slovak Republic
>> Tel: +421 915 052 184
>> skype: marekwhite
>> twitter: #opennandra
>> web: http://open-nandra.com
>> ___
>> Gta04-owner mailing list
>> Gta04-owner@goldelico.com
>> http://lists.goldelico.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/gta04-owner
>
> ___
> Gta04-owner mailing list
> Gta04-owner@goldelico.com
> http://lists.goldelico.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/gta04-owner


BR,

marek
___
Gta04-owner mailing list
Gta04-owner@goldelico.com
http://lists.goldelico.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/gta04-owner

Re: [Gta04-owner] qtmoko2 crosscompilation

[H. Nikolaus Schaller]

Hi Marek,

> Am 13.04.2018 um 11:32 schrieb Belisko Marek :
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I tried to find some valuable info about qtmoko2 crosscompilation on
> PC (not native on arm board). in README it's written it's not
> supported but there are anyway some steps how to do that. I was able
> to cross-compile qtopia on my ubuntu 16.04 pc but it fails when
> compile qtmoko. Kust want to ask if anybody here have some ideas or
> tried to do the same and can share some knowledge. Thanks a lot.

what I had tried is:

http://git.goldelico.com/?p=gta04-qtmoko.git;a=blob;f=README;h=539a8c41dddc9f726641e1d1228d6a548a6a3f53;hb=e8a920c0c4eaef02a060af138f6bec80054bb517#l76

i.e. without chroot. It looks really straightforward and to be the right thing.

But I failed in finding the correct cross-compiler binary for wheezy.
This is when I decided to move to the native build because there is a wheezy 
compatible (non-cross-)gcc.

So which cross-compiler do you use to compile qtopia?
 
BR,
Nikolaus

> 
> BR,
> 
> marek
> 
> -- 
> as simple and primitive as possible
> -
> Marek Belisko - OPEN-NANDRA
> Freelance Developer
> 
> Ruska Nova Ves 219 | Presov, 08005 Slovak Republic
> Tel: +421 915 052 184
> skype: marekwhite
> twitter: #opennandra
> web: http://open-nandra.com
> ___
> Gta04-owner mailing list
> Gta04-owner@goldelico.com
> http://lists.goldelico.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/gta04-owner

___
Gta04-owner mailing list
Gta04-owner@goldelico.com
http://lists.goldelico.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/gta04-owner

Re: [Gta04-owner] QtMoko2 progress

[H. Nikolaus Schaller]

Dear tinkerers and readers,
it is time for another update:

* we have brought the Jessie and Wheezy source code in better sync [1]
* in total we currently have just 5 patches on top of Wheezy
  to get it compiled and linked and installed on Jessie
* we have fixed some wrong ALSA mixer states
* some (invisible) warnings have been fixed - just to be safe
* there is a script for easier debugging on the device (it runs qpe
  under the control of gdb and disables auto-suspend)
* Andreas has found some more power-saving patches for the kernel

The Jessie version has a significant bug (a double-free) where we
only know that it comes from QSmoothListPrivate::dereferenceItem
called by libQtCore.so.4 while closing e.g. the Calendar.

This seems to be very difficult to track down since the first free()
must have been done unnoticed much earlier in code.

And it is not at all obvious how this comes from compiling on Jessie
and adding 5 patches. It might be a gcc bug, or a bug that reveals
itself only when using a newer gcc or newer APIs of some libs.

This means at the moment we can only recommend to use the Wheezy
version. Unless we can fix that in source code.

Finally, I have installed QtMoko/Wheezy through makesd on an
OpenPandora SD card and the result is promising:

https://twitter.com/goldelico/status/969214757109628929

So it might at least basically work at on the PyraPhone as well.

BR and happy tinkering,
Nikolaus

[1]: http://git.goldelico.com/?p=gta04-qtmoko.git;a=summary
___
Gta04-owner mailing list
Gta04-owner@goldelico.com
http://lists.goldelico.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/gta04-owner