FORUMS

[TOOLS][ZIPS][SCRIPTS] osm0sis' Odds and Ends [Multiple Devices/Platforms]

13,899 posts
Thanks Meter: 30,848
 
By osm0sis, Recognized Developer / Recognized Contributor on 18th April 2013, 01:37 AM
Post Reply Email Thread
5th February 2018, 09:07 PM |#1621  
osm0sis's Avatar
OP Recognized Developer / Recognized Contributor
Flag Halifax
Thanks Meter: 30,848
 
Donate to Me
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by RagingHarry

Bought you a few beers

Thank you so much for the generous donation!
6th February 2018, 04:15 PM |#1622  
Senior Member
Thanks Meter: 499
 
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by osm0sis

Reposting this PM and response here before anyone else asks:


Hey, I did notice, yes, but because people (and many of my projects) rely on it, I only update when busybox.net deems it stable. If you go there now you'll see x.y.0 (e.g. 1.28.0) busybox releases are actually always labeled "unstable" and then become "stable" with x.y.1; that's just how their dev cycle works.

I'll do the bringup and new builds once that happens, but I'll have installer fixes for Magisk v15+ coming soon in the meantime.

Hey osm0sis, thanks for all your hard work and contributions many projects are built with your tools as their foundation and wouldn't be possible without your work. So a big thank you from the community.

Understand and agree with your policy of bringing BusyBox up to date when it's marked as stable, however when you browse the source code for v1.28 it's marked as stable in the git. I see the website has it marked is unstable but the 1.28 branch has the stable tag on its code.

Perhaps I'm just reading into it too much. I see their release cycle as you described but I'm confused by the 5 week old code marked as stable.
6th February 2018, 04:23 PM |#1623  
osm0sis's Avatar
OP Recognized Developer / Recognized Contributor
Flag Halifax
Thanks Meter: 30,848
 
Donate to Me
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbarker2

Hey osm0sis, thanks for all your hard work and contributions many projects are built with your tools as their foundation and wouldn't be possible without your work. So a big thank you from the community.

Understand and agree with your policy of bringing BusyBox up to date when it's marked as stable, however when you browse the source code for v1.28 it's marked as stable in the git. I see the website has it marked is unstable but the 1.28 branch has the stable tag on its code.

Perhaps I'm just reading into it too much. I see their release cycle as you described but I'm confused by the 5 week old code marked as stable.

People ask this every time..

They fork into a "stable" branch at each x.y.0 release which then receives fixes to become the stable x.y.1+ releases. This is so other changes from master branch aren't breaking anything new. Therefore both make sense and the website's label of unstable is the final word, as a fresh branch at x.y.0 means stuff is very possibly broken until they vet it further and commit some fixes.

See how it was for 1.27.x as that might explain better: https://git.busybox.net/busybox/log/?h=1_27_stable
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to osm0sis For This Useful Post: [ View ]
6th February 2018, 04:34 PM |#1624  
Senior Member
Thanks Meter: 499
 
More
Yeah I got the release cycle of changing xy.0 to xy.1 and it's shown as stable on their website, wasn't questioning your choice or asking for clarification on how they maintain their project.

I guess it just threw me to see a "stable" code branch building an "unstable" binary.

The initial 1.27.0 doesn't have the green stable tag and the 1.28.0 does. Do they retroactively change tags on old commits or remove them when a new main is pushed?

That's really what I was bringing up and didn't make it clear in first post. Not asking you to do anything, more of a pondering post I guess.
6th February 2018, 04:58 PM |#1625  
osm0sis's Avatar
OP Recognized Developer / Recognized Contributor
Flag Halifax
Thanks Meter: 30,848
 
Donate to Me
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbarker2

Yeah I got the release cycle of changing xy.0 to xy.1 and it's shown as stable on their website, wasn't questioning your choice or asking for clarification on how they maintain their project.

I guess it just threw me to see a "stable" code branch building an "unstable" binary.

The initial 1.27.0 doesn't have the green stable tag and the 1.28.0 does. Do they retroactively change tags on old commits or remove them when a new main is pushed?

That's really what I was bringing up and didn't make it clear in first post. Not asking you to do anything, more of a pondering post I guess.

Check out the 1.27 stable branch I linked again and compare; the green one is the branch not the tag, so the green label visible on their git page moves with the head of that branch, and thus it's there but it's always at the top.
6th February 2018, 11:17 PM |#1626  
Surge1223's Avatar
Recognized Contributor
Flag Iowa
Thanks Meter: 7,400
 
Donate to Me
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSt33v

I tried installing the updated fastboot by removing your ADB+fastboot magisk module (which works perfectly), swapping out the old fastboot with the new version and reinstalling it, but I only get "illegal instruction" whenever I try to use it. Any idea why that didn't work? I used the ARM version and I'm using an ARM device.

I probs have three libs I need to link left, which is not a lot compared to the entirety, it needed about 20 for armeabi, vs like 7 for arm64-v8a

Good think is this time I did made with the ndk, so I can post up source for folks to use, granted a little ndk hacking is needed

Tl dr
I'm close to fixing arm vers

---------- Post added at 04:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:41 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by osm0sis

Check out the 1.27 stable branch I linked again and compare; the green one is the branch not the tag, so the green label visible on their git page moves with the head of that branch, and thus it's there but it's always at the top.

Check hangouts when you can, or if you want, join society and get tg lmao
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Surge1223 For This Useful Post: [ View ] Gift Surge1223 Ad-Free
8th February 2018, 03:44 PM |#1627  
fhem's Avatar
Senior Member
Flag Pittsburgh, PA
Thanks Meter: 1,599
 
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by Surge1223

[/COLOR]Check hangouts when you can, or if you want, join society and get tg lmao

I think they banned tg in halifax!!!
The Following User Says Thank You to fhem For This Useful Post: [ View ] Gift fhem Ad-Free
11th February 2018, 09:28 PM |#1629  
osm0sis's Avatar
OP Recognized Developer / Recognized Contributor
Flag Halifax
Thanks Meter: 30,848
 
Donate to Me
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonFire1024

Regarding ADB and fastboot, is there a flashable zip for arm64?

arm builds work fine on arm64, and also on x86/x86_64 with the libhoudini compatibility layer.
11th February 2018, 09:39 PM |#1630  
Quote:
Originally Posted by osm0sis

arm builds work fine on arm64, and also on x86/x86_64 with the libhoudini compatibility layer.

I'm looking for a way to get armv7 devices to work with arm64 in an emulator.
12th February 2018, 12:35 AM |#1631  
osm0sis's Avatar
OP Recognized Developer / Recognized Contributor
Flag Halifax
Thanks Meter: 30,848
 
Donate to Me
More
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonFire1024

I'm looking for a way to get armv7 devices to work with arm64 in an emulator.

adb is adb, if the device or emulator is running adbd then the adb binary (either on desktop or on-device using my package) should be able to connect to it.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to osm0sis For This Useful Post: [ View ]
Post Reply Subscribe to Thread

Tags
automation, batch, flashable zip, script, tool

Guest Quick Reply (no urls or BBcode)
Message:
Previous Thread Next Thread
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes