Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: Supported vs. unsupported builds
Re: Supported vs. unsupported builds
From: Karl Kurbjun <kkurbjun_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 23:11:51 -0600
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 7:04 PM, Thomas
> RafaŽl Carrť schrieb:
>> On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 14:28:06 -0700
>> Mike Giacomelli <giac2000_at_hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> 2) †"Unstable" - all targets with working playback that developers
>>> feel are usable but unstable. †This classification would be informal,
>>> having been agreed on by the individual ports developers that a
>>> target is ready for people other then themselves to try without
>>> serious risk of damage. †These may or may not have official released
>>> bootloaders or easy to used install tools, and generally require a
>>> more informed user. †This might include the AMS Sansas, Gigabeat S,
>>> and the various other targets we provide compiled builds and
>>> bootloaders for, but currently do not support in the forums. †These
>>> are less prominently displayed on the front page with a clear note
>>> indicating they are incomplete. †Furthermore, installation
>>> instructions should clearly mention what does not work in the
>> Some modification of RButil might help to differentiate Stable from
>> Unstable (firefox unstable builds use a bomb icon for example)
>>> 3) †"Unusable" - these are targets with code in SVN that cannot be
>>> used for playback because they are missing substantial features
>>> (playback, LCD, etc).
>> Not sure if those targets need to be advertized more than they are
>> currently (in the TargetStatus wiki page)
>>> Further, I think the front page should be changed to say something
>>> like: Rockbox is an open source firmware for mp3 players, written
>>> from scratch. It runs on a wide range of players:
>>> [bullet] †STABLE - These targets are well tested, stable and have
>>> detailed manuals... list ...[bullet] †UNSTABLE - These targets are
>>> currently incomplete and considered unstable but may be suitable for
>>> advanced users (see whatever ) ... list ...[bullet] †UNUSABLE -
>>> Additional targets are under development but do not yet run rockbox -
>>> see CurrentStatus wiki page.
>>> Or at least something to this effect. †Thoughts?
>> I agree, I suppose one needs to come with a list of targets entering
>> the Unstable category. (*looks at kugel for the Sansa AMS targets)
> The AMS sansas are definitely in the unstable group, as the samsung YH* (at
> least the 925, maybe 920 (now with sound) and 820 too) and Gigabeat S.
> Depending on what the main port developers say I'd even count cowon d2 and
> ondas into it (although I've only have a third person view on those and
> can't tell anything about the stability, I'm just hearing good stuff about
> them :) ).
> For me, unstable really only means stable music playback and a mostly
> reliable storage driver("mostly reliable" means to me: It may crash or panic
> or not work at all, but it †shouldn't corrupt the data).
> For what's it worth, I'd even go for supporting the AMS sansas dispite of
> the microsd issues (it doesn't actually corrupt data, does it?). If anyone
> feels greatly uncomfortable with it, I can understand that. But I'd even
> tend to support them without microsd support for now (and keep the testing
> builds with microsd around).
> So my list would be e200v2, fuze, beast and yh925.
> _at_saratoga. Yea, you're basically concluding what we agreed on at the devcon.
> Yet, nobody has taken a step to actually make it happen for a target or two.
> I think we really should get something running soon'ish. But we also have a
> release upcoming which we might focus on for the next 3 weeks.
> Holding back ports just because they don't reach the feature set of existing
> supported targets is silly IMO.
> Best regards.
I would add the M:Robe 500 in there as well; it is actually quite
usable, the touchscreen support still needs work, but that applies for
any touchscreen target.
Received on 2009-09-03