Now that Android O developer preview has dropped. I feel like the devs should drop working on 7.1.2 and just go straight to Android O when they create an AOSP branch on it. Any devs planning on doing that?
That will almost be impossible as with 7.1.2 Android O will be 64 bit. Porting back to our 32 bit device will be next to impossible
zelendel said:
That will almost be impossible as with 7.1.2 Android O will be 64 bit. Porting back to our 32 bit device will be next to impossible
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ok, so what's next, after 7.1.1 in AOSP for our Shamu? Nothing?
gothy.gothy said:
Ok, so what's next, after 7.1.1 in AOSP for our Shamu? Nothing?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Android O is only in Dev preview stage. The code is bound to change and the full code is not there for us to compile. So if anyone actually are going to try then they are going to build a messy hacked build and have to start all over again when next preview comes. Best is to wait until Android O launched at fall when the final code gets pushed to aosp and that's the right time for developers to work on Android O for our Shamus. In short, now is not the right time.
gothy.gothy said:
Ok, so what's next, after 7.1.1 in AOSP for our Shamu? Nothing?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No one is sure. It very well maybe the last AOSP we see. It will still be worked on i am sure but I doubt we will see anything past it for the shamu. This is why many devs have moved to other devices like the 6p or the 3t.
Arju said:
Android O is only in Dev preview stage. The code is bound to change and the full code is not there for us to compile. So if anyone actually are going to try then they are going to build a messy hacked build and have to start all over again when next preview comes. Best is to wait until Android O launched at fall when the final code gets pushed to aosp and that's the right time for developers to work on Android O for our Shamus. In short, now is not the right time.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, not about the time I asked, but the possibility to have Android O, doesn't matter when.
I asked what will be after 7.1.1.
---------- Post added at 11:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:19 PM ----------
zelendel said:
No one is sure. It very well maybe the last AOSP we see. It will still be worked on i am sure but I doubt we will see anything past it for the shamu. This is why many devs have moved to other devices like the 6p or the 3t.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, it is a pity, because it's a very good device!
@gothy.gothy We will probably see Android O through the unofficial route and I'm sure the Nexus 6 will live to see another year, but further than that it's hard to predict. Zelendel is right that it will only get harder and harder by time and when apps only starts supporting 64bit and looses support for 32bit then we're out of the game. We might get a sloppy hack of a build but loose app support in future major updates after Android O. So the best would be to move to a device that runs 64bit.
rester555 said:
Now that Android O developer preview has dropped. I feel like the devs should drop working on 7.1.2 and just go straight to Android O when they create an AOSP branch on it. Any devs planning on doing that?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No developers are "working" on 7.1.2 (except maybe a few brave kernel developers), because the source isn't pushed to AOSP until the final release.
zelendel said:
That will almost be impossible as with 7.1.2 Android O will be 64 bit. Porting back to our 32 bit device will be next to impossible
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't mean to start a flame war, but this just isn't right. There has been no effort to "remove" 32-bit support. In fact, the Nexus Player is still a 32-bit device (albeit x86) which is supported by O, it may be 64-bit hardware, but due to proprietary firmware, they decided to have the 2nd-stage bootloader, and kernel/user-space boot in 32-bit mode. It has the O preview out now. Plus the 32-bit toolchains still get active support, and even 64-bit devices (i.e. angler/marlin) run some amount of arm(32) code in the form of their proprietary firmware/libraries, so we'll always need the ability to run 32-bit code on Android, and therefore, not stripping 32-bit compatibility from Android.
Also, there haven't been any specific moves by Google in terms of AOSP source away from 32-bit support.
gothy.gothy said:
Ok, so what's next, after 7.1.1 in AOSP for our Shamu? Nothing?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'd bet just about any amount of money the Nexus 6 will see O once source drops.
zelendel said:
No one is sure. It very well maybe the last AOSP we see. It will still be worked on i am sure but I doubt we will see anything past it for the shamu. This is why many devs have moved to other devices like the 6p or the 3t.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why would O be the last AOSP we see? Android is mostly licensed under GPLv3, so they have to release source (that compiles) for the large majority of android. If you're refereeing to the fushcia OS they are creating, according to git logs, it is to be used on intergrated system's, as the kernel they wrote is very minimal.
My apologies gentlemen, I thought that AOSP was pushed on each developer preview. I didn't realize that it doesn't hit the AOSP Branch until the final build.
rester555 said:
My apologies gentlemen, I thought that AOSP was pushed on each developer preview. I didn't realize that it doesn't hit the AOSP Branch until the final build.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hence why you look silly putting up this thread...
npjohnson said:
No developers are "working" on 7.1.2 (except maybe a few brave kernel developers), because the source isn't pushed to AOSP until the final release.
I don't mean to start a flame war, but this just isn't right. There has been no effort to "remove" 32-bit support. In fact, the Nexus Player is still a 32-bit device (albeit x86) which is supported by O, it may be 64-bit hardware, but due to proprietary firmware, they decided to have the 2nd-stage bootloader, and kernel/user-space boot in 32-bit mode. It has the O preview out now. Plus the 32-bit toolchains still get active support, and even 64-bit devices (i.e. angler/marlin) run some amount of arm(32) code in the form of their proprietary firmware/libraries, so we'll always need the ability to run 32-bit code on Android, and therefore, not stripping 32-bit compatibility from Android.
Also, there haven't been any specific moves by Google in terms of AOSP source away from 32-bit support.
I'd bet just about any amount of money the Nexus 6 will see O once source drops.
Why would O be the last AOSP we see? Android is mostly licensed under GPLv3, so they have to release source (that compiles) for the large majority of android. If you're refereeing to the fushcia OS they are creating, according to git logs, it is to be used on intergrated system's, as the kernel they wrote is very minimal.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is where you are mistaken. Android isn't under the GPL. Only the kernel is. Android is under the apache license. Google doesn't have to push any code for Android at all. They could completely stop. Or keep doing what they started with the 6p and that is make the system files like system ui closed sourced.
You really have not been paying attention much. Just look at the last issues the nexus had with the updates. Not to mention not getting all of the stuff in the update that the 62 bit devices got.
zelendel said:
This is where you are mistaken. Android isn't under the GPL. Only the kernel is. Android is under the apache license.
You really have not been paying attention much. Just look at the last issues the nexus had with the updates. Not to mention not getting all of the stuff in the update that the 62 bit devices got.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Apologies for the typo there. GPLv3 (which requires source release) ==> Apache (which does not). As you noted though, kernel sources are GPLv3.
I really have been paying attention though. I too wondered why the Nexus 6 didn't get Nougat as quickly, and why the 6P's 7.1.2 updates were delayed. If you do some static disassembly/analysis on the Nexus 6's proprietary blobs (in specific, take a look at the prebuilt qcom binaries, like qmuxd and mm-qcamera and the date they were signed), you can deduce that the reason we saw a delayed 7.1.1 (and 7.0 for that matter) on the Nexus 6 was because QCOM either had issues with the specific hardware peripherals related, or just wasn't keen on working on them. An issue that isn't strictly related to 32-bit support, because we saw the same exact issue with Angler on the initial 7.1.2 Beta release (some blobs which are pre-signed being dated barely before the build date). Plus the Nexus 6 itself was never intended to be a Nexus phone. In an interview with one of the Engineer's who worked on the Nexus 6, they stated that there initially was another manufacturer who backed out last minute, forcing them to use the Moto X Pro shell that shipped in China (the hardware is identical + an IR sensor for Moto Display), so Google hasn't ever been to keen on the Nexus 6.
And, what are you referring to that 64-bit devices got that the Nexus 6 didn't? Other than some of the gestures, I don't see it. The 6, 6P, and 5x all got Assistant (well, everyone did), with 7.1.1, they all got gesture support (the 6 is missing one, I think double-tap to wake? And that's because it never worked reliably on the 6's display panel without significant battery repercussions). None of the Nexus series devices got Pixel Launcher (officially at least), but they're all capable of side-loading it (i.e. no 64-bit only libraries), and none of the Nexus series got the Pixel style navigation bar, but I suppose those two could be written off as 'Pixel Exclusives', and are 32-bit agnostic anyway.
One more shining example of 32-bit getting updates just fine is the Android One program, which contains a boatload of currently supported devices (many of which are expected to get O), many of which are not only 32-bit, but MediaTek powered (unrelated, but still interesting).
npjohnson said:
Apologies for the typo there. GPLv3 (which requires source release) ==> Apache (which does not). As you noted though, kernel sources are GPLv3.
I really have been paying attention though. I too wondered why the Nexus 6 didn't get Nougat as quickly, and why the 6P's 7.1.2 updates were delayed. If you do some static disassembly/analysis on the Nexus 6's proprietary blobs (in specific, take a look at the prebuilt qcom binaries, like qmuxd and mm-qcamera and the date they were signed), you can deduce that the reason we saw a delayed 7.1.1 (and 7.0 for that matter) on the Nexus 6 was because QCOM either had issues with the specific hardware peripherals related, or just wasn't keen on working on them. An issue that isn't strictly related to 32-bit support, because we saw the same exact issue with Angler on the initial 7.1.2 Beta release (some blobs which are pre-signed being dated barely before the build date). Plus the Nexus 6 itself was never intended to be a Nexus phone. In an interview with one of the Engineer's who worked on the Nexus 6, they stated that there initially was another manufacturer who backed out last minute, forcing them to use the Moto X Pro shell that shipped in China (the hardware is identical + an IR sensor for Moto Display), so Google hasn't ever been to keen on the Nexus 6.
And, what are you referring to that 64-bit devices got that the Nexus 6 didn't? Other than some of the gestures, I don't see it. The 6, 6P, and 5x all got Assistant (well, everyone did), with 7.1.1, they all got gesture support (the 6 is missing one, I think double-tap to wake? And that's because it never worked reliably on the 6's display panel without significant battery repercussions). None of the Nexus series devices got Pixel Launcher (officially at least), but they're all capable of side-loading it (i.e. no 64-bit only libraries), and none of the Nexus series got the Pixel style navigation bar, but I suppose those two could be written off as 'Pixel Exclusives', and are 32-bit agnostic anyway.
One more shining example of 32-bit getting updates just fine is the Android One program, which contains a boatload of currently supported devices (many of which are expected to get O), many of which are not only 32-bit, but MediaTek powered (unrelated, but still interesting).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you look close at the one program, it was an epic fail. They seldom see an update. MTK bweing the main reason they dont get updates. Just ask anyone where andoid one is even sold. Many never even saw a single update.
If you look at the official software that was pushed (not what was pushed to AOSP as they are different) to the pixel you will notice things like the system ui being different as google now closed alot of that off.
Delayed/. You mean delayed, pushed, pulled and then reuploaded. Even with things still broken on the n6. I mean even the latest update for it disabled saftynet checks for the nexus 6 as a workaround for the changes in the code that didnt convert properly from 64bit to 32bit.
You have to understand that google doesnt care about anything older. All they are worring about is the pixel line now.
rignfool said:
Hence why you look silly putting up this thread...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think I look silly at all. Based on the conversation on the thread. I think it was a good discussion.
It's still possible for Nexus 6 to see Android 8.0 but it's now more of a chicken and egg issues. As for Android 7.1.2, I am sure it's still officially a hybrid build as well. All we can do is wait and see what's in Android 8.0 Oreo source code this early winter.
As for Nexus player, I doubt they locked Long Mode out of firmware, it's impossible because the kernel can call the stack register required for a jump from Protected Mode (32-bit) into Long Mode (64-bit) directly, no matter what (yes, even in MS-DOS). It's up to Google to decide if Nexus Player stay in 32-bit mode - I bet Android 8.0 will allow it to enter Long Mode this time, with the Long Mode option enabled in Linux kernel - only CPU-Z app will tell you whether it's running in 64-bit mode.
we believe in great developers like in lineageOS they are still supporting nexus 4 and nexus 5 without any problems with regularly updates , but if android o is 64 bit that will be the pain
Dr. Mario said:
It's still possible for Nexus 6 to see Android 8.0 but it's now more of a chicken and egg issues. As for Android 7.1.2, I am sure it's still officially a hybrid build as well. All we can do is wait and see what's in Android 8.0 Oreo source code this early winter.
As for Nexus player, I doubt they locked Long Mode out of firmware, it's impossible because the kernel can call the stack register required for a jump from Protected Mode (32-bit) into Long Mode (64-bit) directly, no matter what (yes, even in MS-DOS). It's up to Google to decide if Nexus Player stay in 32-bit mode - I bet Android 8.0 will allow it to enter Long Mode this time, with the Long Mode option enabled in Linux kernel - only CPU-Z app will tell you whether it's running in 64-bit mode.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, I wish this was right, but the 2-nd Stage Bootloader (a LittleKernel derivative) runs in strictly 32-bit mode, and we are unable to load any 64-bit kernel's, plus, several device firmwares for the Nexus Player (as provided by Intel) are strictly 32-bit, and don't work in 64-bit contexts.
zelendel said:
If you look close at the one program, it was an epic fail. They seldom see an update. MTK bweing the main reason they dont get updates. Just ask anyone where andoid one is even sold. Many never even saw a single update.
If you look at the official software that was pushed (not what was pushed to AOSP as they are different) to the pixel you will notice things like the system ui being different as google now closed alot of that off.
Delayed/. You mean delayed, pushed, pulled and then reuploaded. Even with things still broken on the n6. I mean even the latest update for it disabled saftynet checks for the nexus 6 as a workaround for the changes in the code that didnt convert properly from 64bit to 32bit.
You have to understand that google doesnt care about anything older. All they are worring about is the pixel line now.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Several of the One program's phones like, seed, seed2, general mobile 4g, have all not only been hosted on Google's factory image page, and some even got updates much faster than the Nexus 6 did (comical, and ridiculous I agree, but 32-bit non-the-less).
And, with the Pixel's I would agree that Google close sources several app (SystemUI, Frameworks-res, etc.) but it is worth questioning a few things:
1) If they'd given the Nexus's those apps, don't you suppose there'd be some backlash from owners who bought the phone because of its open source nature? The Pixel's made no promise of that.
2) Are the small features they contain even worth it? A blue color scheme (when the old teal is arguably more visually appealing), circular icons (which many hate), and a Night Light Overlay (this is useful, but requires a new hardwarecomposer setup that the 6P just doesn't have, and all the 3rd party/flashable solutions fall back to using a GL shader and the device's battery/performance takes a noticeable compared to the Pixels implementation).
And, as for the SafetyNet check disabling, though Android Police said that, there is literally no proof. The check tokens are still sent, and verified server side, and if you're rooted, the device still fails the authentication. AP threw out some unsubstantiated information. No deivce side-change was needed on the Nexus 6, so they re-uploaded the same factory image, and made a server side change. And nowhere was anything said about it being 64 ==> 32-bit code incompatibility. Do you have any source on that?
npjohnson said:
Well, I wish this was right, but the 2-nd Stage Bootloader (a LittleKernel derivative) runs in strictly 32-bit mode, and we are unable to load any 64-bit kernel's, plus, several device firmwares for the Nexus Player (as provided by Intel) are strictly 32-bit, and don't work in 64-bit contexts.
Several of the One program's phones like, seed, seed2, general mobile 4g, have all not only been hosted on Google's factory image page, and some even got updates much faster than the Nexus 6 did (comical, and ridiculous I agree, but 32-bit non-the-less).
And, with the Pixel's I would agree that Google close sources several app (SystemUI, Frameworks-res, etc.) but it is worth questioning a few things:
1) If they'd given the Nexus's those apps, don't you suppose there'd be some backlash from owners who bought the phone because of its open source nature? The Pixel's made no promise of that.
2) Are the small features they contain even worth it? A blue color scheme (when the old teal is arguably more visually appealing), circular icons (which many hate), and a Night Light Overlay (this is useful, but requires a new hardwarecomposer setup that the 6P just doesn't have, and all the 3rd party/flashable solutions fall back to using a GL shader and the device's battery/performance takes a noticeable compared to the Pixels implementation).
And, as for the SafetyNet check disabling, though Android Police said that, there is literally no proof. The check tokens are still sent, and verified server side, and if you're rooted, the device still fails the authentication. AP threw out some unsubstantiated information. No deivce side-change was needed on the Nexus 6, so they re-uploaded the same factory image, and made a server side change. And nowhere was anything said about it being 64 ==> 32-bit code incompatibility. Do you have any source on that?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
People these days aways looking for proof when info like this can't be shared openly nor can sources. You would be amazed at things talked about in development chats that don't make it to the users.
Just sit back and watch. I like most other developers have already decided to leave the N6 and get newer devices. When asked about it they already said they will not be converting any 64bit code at all. So anything that is coded for 64 bit devices then the N6 will never see it.
At least I have two agendas on hand; 1. I am already planning on buying the next Nexus (Pixel 2) or similar phone with Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 SOC whose bootloader remain user-unlockable and usable on Verizon network (I absolutely hate Verizon's locked bootloader policy). 2. There's other options, like Ubuntu Touch.
npjohnson said:
No developers are "working" on 7.1.2 (except maybe a few brave kernel developers), because the source isn't pushed to AOSP until the final release.
I don't mean to start a flame war, but this just isn't right. There has been no effort to "remove" 32-bit support. In fact, the Nexus Player is still a 32-bit device (albeit x86) which is supported by O, it may be 64-bit hardware, but due to proprietary firmware, they decided to have the 2nd-stage bootloader, and kernel/user-space boot in 32-bit mode. It has the O preview out now. Plus the 32-bit toolchains still get active support, and even 64-bit devices (i.e. angler/marlin) run some amount of arm(32) code in the form of their proprietary firmware/libraries, so we'll always need the ability to run 32-bit code on Android, and therefore, not stripping 32-bit compatibility from Android.
Also, there haven't been any specific moves by Google in terms of AOSP source away from 32-bit support.
I'd bet just about any amount of money the Nexus 6 will see O once source drops.
Why would O be the last AOSP we see? Android is mostly licensed under GPLv3, so they have to release source (that compiles) for the large majority of android. If you're refereeing to the fushcia OS they are creating, according to git logs, it is to be used on intergrated system's, as the kernel they wrote is very minimal.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I sure hope to see Android O on our Shamu! Fingers crossed we'll start to slowly see ROMs after official release and AOSP! Hope it's possible!
---------- Post added at 08:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:58 PM ----------
rester555 said:
I don't think I look silly at all. Based on the conversation on the thread. I think it was a good discussion.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's no such thing as a dumb question, how else does one learn? :angel:
I've been with my stock Droid Turbo since it released in October 2014; I'd like to upgrade to something newer, but nothing I've found has fit my requirements (big battery, <5.5" screen, non-glass back, headphone jack, no notch, Verizon compatible, preferably unlocked/unlockable). So far, my Turbo still does the job, so I've stuck with it; however, its battery is showing its age, and it hasn't gotten an update in quite some time. Obviously, I can replace the battery at some point, so that's not a problem; the issue of updates, on the other hand, is.
I've unlocked my phone long ago when Sunshine first released to root it, so that's not an issue. My issue is that this is my one and only phone, so I need it to be stable and I'm looking to have all of its features working. I know from browsing ROM threads in the past they've typically had issues with either stability or features not working, so I've been hesitant to jump ship from the stock ROM. I'm a security professional, though, so it bothers me how behind this phone is on security updates. I'd like to move beyond Marshmallow as well, but the security updates are my main concern.
So, with all that said, I'm looking to get some opinions from users of the Quark ROMS out there. As stated, stability and feature functionality are the most important things for me. Please let me know which ROM you would recommend for my situation, and why. I know the best solution would be to trial different ROMs myself and see which works best for me; but between work, family and kids, the time just isn't there to be without a phone I know I can rely on - so I'm seeking your advice.
Thanks in advance!
(If you've got any suggestions for a phone upgrade, feel free to chime in with those as well.)
I have been using NepoRood's AOKP ROM for about a year. It's great but since he broke the screen of his Turbo, he hasn't updated the ROM. I flash BHB27's kernel and hope the security updates in the kernel are enough.
lots of stable roms available with EVERYTHING working,
calsurferpunks LOS 14 is very stable and smooth
Viper OS is exceptionally smooth and fast, also very stable
RR 7.x i would not reccommend as it was a bit less stable than the above selections, but it has ALOT of features and is stable enough for a mention
i could not get AOSPExtended or mokee to work
didnt try CRDroid very long but seemed similar to RR 7.0
have not tried others yet, if i like a ROM upon trying it, i usually trial it for a month or more to get a good idea of the long term stability/usability of the ROM
This is not an endorsement of any ROMs. In the 3.5 years I owned three Quarks, I first used rooted stock Kitkat wth xposed/Gravity box, then Lollipop CM, then Resurrection Remix (both Marshmallow, then Nougat).
However, I keep a list of current ROMs for Quarks (Droid Turbo/Moto Turbo/Moto Maxx) and I read through all the ROM threads. I help when I can, when people have issues. So, I've seen a lot... The three ROMs I see people praise most often and seem to have less issues with are:
@bhb27 RR - Resurrection Remix (Nougat)
@calsurferpunk's LOS (Nougat) -- sort of a hybrid of RR and official LOS; it doesn't have the plethora of options RR has, but I never used all the options in RR. However, it does have LED notification and Moto apps Google Play permissions and a few others.
@NepoRood's AOKP ROM (Nougat) -- but now not updated as often as he owns another device.
Most of the other ROMs on the list are also fine. I am not criticizing them in any way. We appreciate all the ROMs this device has and all the hard maintainers do to help users. All the Nougat ROMs are compatible with ALL Quarks -- Droid Turbo/Moto Turbo/Moto Maxx. They're all the same phone (the way an LG G3 is an LG G3, no matter whether bought in UK or Canada. Some even have the exact same radio bands. Moto Maxx XT1250 = Droid Turbo XT1254, with same radio bands, same FCC ID. XT1250 runs on Verizon with a Verizon SIM card. BOTH the Moto Maxx XT1250 and Droid Turbo XT1254 were sold in the U.S. by different carriers, but they were the EXACT same phone. Point is, Motorola really messed things up by calling this phone different model names for different carriers/different parts of the world.
None of the LOS-based custom ROMs would be possible without @bhb27's kernel work, however. He not only maintains two ROMs, he also codes our "stock" LOS kernel, besides having an advanced standalone kernel and his TWRP work, plus apps like Turbo Toast.
OTHER
You don't say what carrier you are with. IF you are on Verizon with your Droid Turbo, and IF you want Verizon Volte, then you need @computerfreek274 stock-based Marshmallow ROM. It's the ONLY ROM that has VoLTE and Wi-Fi calling -- and only then for Verizon. Some Droid Turbo users on Verizon still use an LOS-based ROMs as they feel the many options those ROMs offer (like the nifty LED notification and security updates) are worth not having VoLTE. But others use this stock-based ROM because it's debloated Verizon firmware, has battery and speed tweaks, and they NEED Verizon VoLTE.
NOTE: No other Quarks have VoLTE and the Droid Turbo only has it on Verizon when using stock firmware or stock-based ROM. This ROM is only compatible with Droid Turbo (or Moto Maxx XT1250, since they're really the same device).
Click the link and look through the list.
Thank you all for your responses! They more or less affirm what I thought, but it is good to hear it directly rather than what I've gathered from bits and pieces in other threads. I'll have to give them some more consideration.
Chazz, I am on Verizon, and I would prefer to keep VoLTE, if I could. I didn't think any ROMs other than the stock-based one had gotten VoLTE working though; I knew there had been some development on it, but last I had seen, that development seemed to have stopped.
Does computerfreek's ROM get the new security patches baked into it, or is it on the same patch level as stock-from-Verizon? If it's at the same level, it wouldn't really cut it for me as those security patches are my main concern. I've considered it for the features before, but I decided that wasn't worth the wipe and resetting/reinstalling everything on my phone.
bigdav1178 said:
Does computerfreek's ROM get the new security patches baked into it, or is it on the same patch level as stock-from-Verizon? If it's at the same level, it wouldn't really cut it for me as those security patches are my main concern. I've considered it for the features before, but I decided that wasn't worth the wipe and resetting/reinstalling everything on my phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, this is where the LOS ROMs excel, especially the ones where the maintainers are active and keep the ROMs updated. They have the latest Android security patches.
This is from that CF ROM thread a few months ago, and I can't find any information to refute it:
17th September 2017, 09:51 PM
Spott07 said:
No. This ROM is based on stock from Nov 2016, and does not have any security updates after that date.
Even the latest revision, ver 1.0.8, of CF's ROM was released a few months ago, before the Blueborne vulnerability set was announced, and so obviously could not contain any applicable updates.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Whereas you can see the update date in the title of these two threads:
ROM update! RR-N-v5.8.5-20180414-quark-Mod.zip
[ROM][Quarks][LOS 14.1 Unofficial][7.1.x][2018-04-17]
Both have April 2018 security patches.
Hey I just got this phone a couple of weeks back and while its been awhile I used to be a recognized developer on XDA years ago and was wondering if there are any active developers (still) for this device as I notice the list of active development is basically 0. I am planning on building for the device but would like to know who if anyone is developing currently and what the goals are as it seems without anything outside of stock deodexed and (really the biggest one being the kernel with twrp) we have nothing for this phone even now. This makes it seem like either the proprietary information is extremely difficult (although I see the tree is working for the most part) or we just lack developers. Which is it? Thank you and I apologize if this is in the wrong place. I'd like to see what is the current state of things and see if any developers want to work together on this and at least get a clean aosp build or lineage os build. Stepping stones. Certainly with the Note being as similar as it is this shouldn't be lacking to the state it is today.
Hello jcole20
That would be awesome if some devs started doing something with the RP2! If I had the knowledge, I would!! I've had the RP2 since June of this year. I had some issues with it at first but they have been worked out. I really like the phone and it would be cool to see some devs show the RP2 some love lol. Hopefully you can get something started! Take care!
Dennis
jcole20 said:
Hey I just got this phone a couple of weeks back and while its been awhile I used to be a recognized developer on XDA years ago and was wondering if there are any active developers (still) for this device as I notice the list of active development is basically 0. I am planning on building for the device but would like to know who if anyone is developing currently and what the goals are as it seems without anything outside of stock deodexed and (really the biggest one being the kernel with twrp) we have nothing for this phone even now. This makes it seem like either the proprietary information is extremely difficult (although I see the tree is working for the most part) or we just lack developers. Which is it? Thank you and I apologize if this is in the wrong place. I'd like to see what is the current state of things and see if any developers want to work together on this and at least get a clean aosp build or lineage os build. Stepping stones. Certainly with the Note being as similar as it is this shouldn't be lacking to the state it is today.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am sure people would love to see some device specific development. I have read that since the release of project treble most people just flash the system image from other roms. I specifically would love to see a stockish rom so I don't loose chroma but still get updated security patches.
I ordered this phone from amazon to try out. I am checking out the community and stuff in the 10 day trial period they give you. I really like the phone... i just hate the software side of things. I feel like its super premium hardware with outdated software... that probably isnt even going to get security patches. Anyway... off to see whats available.
Krazy_Calvin said:
I ordered this phone from amazon to try out. I am checking out the community and stuff in the 10 day trial period they give you. I really like the phone... i just hate the software side of things. I feel like its super premium hardware with outdated software... that probably isnt even going to get security patches. Anyway... off to see whats available.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Most functionalities work on Pie GSIs out-of-box (you need to manually install ims.apk in order to receive SMS while on LTE, see relevant threads here, or look for it on some GSI threads such as Havoc 2.9). exFAT also works on supported GSI (with arter97's kernel), while it's not supported on stock. The only problems I have so far are bluetooth-related, and also the inability to set SELinux to permissive (not sure which might be the real cause as arter97 stated the SELinux could be permissive).
Bluetooth media audio doesn't work at all on GSI, partly due to the crippling overlays (which prevents aptX from working, and probably some other limitations). Phone calls work with a bluetooth headset, but for some reasons I couldn't properly route phone calls to my Huawei Watch 2 (which means I always have to take the call from my phone directly).
Given the mostly positive result with numerous GSIs (and that some users are happy with stock ROM, or stock-based ROM modifications), active ROM developments for the device itself doesn't seem to be at a high priority (as some might be able to contribute patches for this device to their favorite GSI instead)...
I'm currently working on my own build of LOS. I haven't seen to much active development either I'm new to rom building but looks like we could use all the help we can get!
I think the only active dev we have for this phone is Arter97's kernel and people tinkering with GSIs to get them working as they should. I wish there was more being done with the stock ROM because I like a lot of it's features, but am having a hard time dealing with it's overall instability. I'd be happy to help develop or test in whatever way I can, though.
jcole20 said:
Hey I just got this phone a couple of weeks back and while its been awhile I used to be a recognized developer on XDA years ago and was wondering if there are any active developers (still) for this device as I notice the list of active development is basically 0. I am planning on building for the device but would like to know who if anyone is developing currently and what the goals are as it seems without anything outside of stock deodexed and (really the biggest one being the kernel with twrp) we have nothing for this phone even now. This makes it seem like either the proprietary information is extremely difficult (although I see the tree is working for the most part) or we just lack developers. Which is it? Thank you and I apologize if this is in the wrong place. I'd like to see what is the current state of things and see if any developers want to work together on this and at least get a clean aosp build or lineage os build. Stepping stones. Certainly with the Note being as similar as it is this shouldn't be lacking to the state it is today.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, it’s definitely just total lack of interest from other devs. We even have a guy with a prototype Razer Phone 2 with an intact DRM partition and unlocked bootloader (Allowing Netflix HD and Vudu HDX) but we couldn’t even pay anyone to try to port it.
I think if we had a fully working AOSP tree that it would possibly bring other devs into the scene. Who knows though, it has never been a popular device despite how great it is.
LSS4181 said:
Most functionalities work on Pie GSIs out-of-box.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Noob question:
Do we have to wait for a stock Android 10 for the device to be able to flash Android 10 GSIs?
EMJI79 said:
Noob question:
Do we have to wait for a stock Android 10 for the device to be able to flash Android 10 GSIs?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A stock Android 10 (which means a stock vendor image for Android 10) is not necessarily required to have a usable Android 10 ROM (though it may speed up the development to some extent, if it does have one), but for GSI, having a stock Android 10 vendor image can be better (currently it's a hit-or-miss on existing Android 10 GSIs).
Another device that I have, Google Pixel C, never had stock Android 9 (so never had stock vendor images for Android 9, only for up to Android 8.1), but custom Android 9 ROMs are already available (thanks to followmsi's efforts) and are working well. For Android 9 ROMs, the build system builds new vendor images along with system image.
It's just whether we're going to see our device's trees being made possible, so we can start from there to develop our own custom ROMs. The existing materials might be a good starting point in making trees.
- Working with proprietary blobs (from Lineage)
- arter97's kernel (can be useful for making a kernel tree, though one can also consider using stock kernel source as a base)
- Razer factory images and kernel sources (for studying stock ROM/kernel details, and extracting necessary system and vendor blobs)
If you can port LineageOS to this device, great!
I don't understand why people aren't flocking to this device. I came from the LG G6 that probably will be stuck on Oreo forever that is way more popular. The RP2 is cheap, has killer specs + a micro SD card slot + a newer version of Android. Should be a developers dream, you would think. *shrug*
Not sure if anyone's active on this device at present. With RP2's 9.0 MR2 available on the official factory images page the latest proprietary blobs (as well as stock kernel source) are now publicly accessible.
Actually arter97 once mentioned that his RP2 kernel is almost inline with his OP6 kernel (which is also sdm845 and shares some similarities), so it's possible that OP6 (enchilada) trees may be a good starting point, but I'm not sure if any configurations are needed to keep 120Hz working as high refresh rate is relatively uncommon.
My time is very limited so I won't be able to dedicate too much time to experiment on this. At present most functionalities work fine with GSI (including Bluetooth, although tricky and aptX still not working).
IDK how relevant this is anymore but as a new razor phone 2 user to be soon I have been keeping up and it seems that @f(x)THaxxorX could be a possible candidate of what you're looking for I've been keeping up with development on the phone seems like he is doing pretty well even if we get patched gsi which properly work is better than nothing.