Great to hear :), but what about the open pull requests here https://code.fairphone.com/gerrit/#/q/status:open, it feels like Android community support is kept small in favor of alternate OSes? I’m missing some focus and better information flow :-/. Guess you and all team members are really working hard, so I don’t want to sound angry or such ;).
So, I am little bit lost, it will be FOSOS or not? I just agree with the idea of having a more secure in the way that I could restrict any application to have internet access. say that, i have previously owned a Xiaomi Mi3, which have very nice secure features (at least from my point of view).
One of them is that the rom came rooted, so I could install a firewall and block all traffic I wanted
Other nice feature is that it allowed the owner to grant or deny access to contacts, sms, camera, etc, for each application.
That is what I call own a phone.
Maybe those features can be implemented without rooting? Using a preinstalled iptables firewall and the option to do allow and deny access for application?
I am not a geek of informatics but it is an idea.
Nope, I think you need root for applying iptable-rules.
Thanks for the support response @anon73900052
Here are my questions:
like some others I am eagerly waiting (with my Phone mostly unused in its box ) for the official release of the mentioned FPosOS. Regarding that, I have several questions:
- Is there a vague release date? (not just Q1-2016)
- Will a self built FPosOS be in the normal lifecycle (the updater is there - but will it be compatible)?
- Do you plan to offer a officially supported recovery system (like TWRP, clockwork)?
- Would it be possible to release a developer blog to always see the current state the FPosOS is in?
– regarding that… I would love to see some nasty bugs that were smashed… that could be very educating.
- Am I free to publish the answers in the community forum?
Thanks for your time and kind regards,Frank
I got the following response:
Thanks for your message. As you’ve seen, the
Fairphone 2 was shipped with Android™ 5.1 (Lollipop) operating system
(OS) with Google apps pre-installed. The OS has a special look and feel developed together with Kwamecorp, as well as a few custom Apps and features for an improved user experience.
Our goal is to take a more open source approach
to be able to offer owners more choice and control over their phone’s
OS. At the start of the development of Fairphone 2, one of the major
ambitions for the phone was to make the Fairphone 2 hardware an open
So in essence:
We built a website as a starting point for learning more about our open source activities
and how you can be a part of it. There you can download the source
code, drivers and get information on how to build the Fairphone Open
Source OS—the open source version of the Fairphone 2 operating system.Advanced
users will be pleased to know the phone comes with the industry
standard OEM unlock feature allowing you more control over device.Finally,
what we wanted to achieve is to enable the organizations and the
communities who develop various operating systems and flavors to use the
Fairphone 2 hardware as a development platform, on which they could
develop and release their work. This is something that a large
proportion of our community has been very interested in for some time,
and we are proud to finally get this off the ground. For more info on
this, read this blog we recently published.You
should ask all your questions and put your comment on the forum, were
you will receive more acurrate information from our software team. The
release of the Open Source Software should not be long now. It is a
matter of weeks, I think.
If you have any further questions, don’t hesitate to get in touch again!
Greetings from Amsterdam,
That is me getting in touch. Only one of my questions was answered: the roughly estimated ETA of the fposos.
I am fully aware of the open source code project and the sailfish OS port (and happy about the effort done there). But my other questions are still there. (Recovery partition, deployment, update lifecycle, etc. ) Please @keesj shed some light on this (and how the compilation went).
As a sidenode: I find it quite confusing being redirected to the community forum where I was told to ask my questions to the support, because this is the community forum. I appreciate, that you guys are here.
Haha, sweet, @Eagle5 ! It seems that @keesj already answered most of your questions before and our software team is doing its best to release this wonderful software version as soon as they can. Because they love and believe in what they do! As we all do here in this community and at this office.
Still a little bit more of patience and you will SEE all the answer to your questions.
Sylvian, thank you very much for your reply here. And also thank you for taking one for the team.
I wish that sometimes the support team would take a step back and re-read the team’s answers and the communities questions to see if there is a pattern in the questions and answers that is not always matching up.
The pattern that I most often see: People ask new highly detailed questions that were not asked before and get a very friendly, but also very empty answer. This is totally understandable. Your workload is high and the people that could answer highly detailed questions are busy fixing those questions/the code.
But some infrastructure changes like a bug tracker or a blog could show people with “detailed info needs” the current showstoppers very quickly. All that would be needed would be a bit more openness on the bug/code tracking side.
Tools like redmine together with gerrit could provide such a framework. More active users could even use those to point out the issues to others. And a developer blog could show things like success stories or notes if you have to wait for other parties (“Code is being reviewed at google, keep your fingers crossed”, "We reported a possible bug in the QC code and are waiting for feedback from them …).
As the update to FP GMS is out now, any news about
Yesterday on twitter they said that FP2 OSOS was “imminent”…
The policy of announcing a date for a release reminds me of little me when my mother would ask me when I would tidy up my room, though I didn’t exactly use the word “imminent”, I guess.
When in Star Trek a core breach was imminent, everyone ran as hell…
I don’t understand what the matter is with not given any clearer information. I mean it wouldn’t have been more complicated to write something like:
Our Dev-Team is working hard to release the fposos version. We hope to manage a release this week but can’t be sure because of that nasty bug.
I mean, this is a very mature community, everyone would understand that such things happen in complex software development and appreciate the communication.
If Scotty was in charge of the OSOS…
“Scotty, how long does it take until we have the OSOS?”
“I need like 14 days”
“I can only give you a week”
“Ok, then I’ll finish it by tomorrow.”
it is still android
Was the latest update 1.2.8 generated from the the same sources I wonder? I don’t see a lot of action in the official repo. Or do they support two repos and the official one is hidden? There shouldn’t be any difference between the two builds, except for the Google stuff, or?
$ repo sync && repo forall -c git log | grep "FP2-" | sort -n
Looks boring, but maybe I’m doing it wrong. The latest comments I can see in are from Jan 2016. Maybe there is another branch, but I’m not really that interested in the code anymore – if it is kept separated, there is no benefit.
I was always expecting that the “fixed” code would be “synced” with the published repo. Or is it hosted somewhere under code.fairphone.com/gerrit?
Update: Can someone who knows more about git, gerrit & repo verify this? @jftr?
Can you explain what you are trying to achieve with this command? I don’t quite get the intention.
What I’ve gathered from posts by Fairphone staff is that the public repository is up-to-date with releases (sorry, I currently can’t find the source). What exactly are you missing anyway?
The bugs fixed in the 1.2.8 release. The command just sync’es the repo and gets all the git logs/commits and checks them for a “FP2-” entry, this is how the bugs are tracked (I think). You will get a list like this:
FP2-1009: Dual SIM improvements FP2-1023:com.android.settings' ANR when connect Wifi FP2-1056:[ST_2][Gallery]Video doesn't stop playing when ... FP2-1121:The music volume gets lower than normal ... FP2-1177: Contact name can not display on calling screen FP2-1185: Can't start recording in FM Radio FP2-1196: [Monkey] 'com.android.gallery3d' crash FP2-1197: fix a crash issue in packageinstaller FP2-1197: [ST_2][Monkey] 'com.android.packageinstaller' crash FP2-1200:make device visible over bluetooth. scan device FP2-1211:WIFI Direct connect failed mostly
All the bug fixes from the 1.2.8 release. All the newest commits I can see here are from Jan 2016.
@keesj compiling for over a week now? And the release was imminent… What is the reason for the delay?
I’m using Fairphone Open Source OS on my FP2 in order to stay away from GAPPS. The updater app only offers me the old 1.1.7 version (which is probably intended by the developers), so I suppose I need to install the 1.2.8 update manually.
However, the patches of this update seem not to be included in FP-OSOS (I tried repo sync but it obviously didn’t pull any source code changes at all), so I’d have to flash the image provided at the Fairphone-OS download page, I assume. But that would install GAPPS as well on my phone, wouldn’t it?
So, how can I get the update now without accidentally installing the Google Services?
I’ve moved your post here, as your question actually touches a lot on the roadmap for the open source version of Fairphone OS. As you can read from the posts above, it’s a bit unclear what the current status is, but there should be a pre-compiled release of FPOSOS soon.
That’s probably because many of the changes are in the binary blobs. They won’t show up in version control.
I did a diff (it’s complicated, because java applications are used as well, there is a lot of “other” software in there.) for fp2-sibon-2.0.0-blobs.tgz and fp2-sibon-2.0.1-blobs.tgz. Nothing has changed. I’m too lazy to compare fp2-sibon-2.0.3-blobs.tgz(?), because all I could possibly find out is that now “something has changed”. And I’m a bit tired of playing Sherlock Holmes … it’s not making things better.
I guess all one can do is download the fp2-sibon-2.0.3-blobs.tgz and compile again (There are things getting linked …).
I have another question:
What makes you think only changes starting with “FP2” are relevant?
I don’t have a clue how Fairphone handles commit messages. However I know that a very common model is to start each commit with the bug ID in the bug tracker to mark that bug as resolved. Of course this only is the case if the code is actually submitted as a single commit and written by Fairphone staff.
But there are other scenarios in which stuff gets fixed but the bug ID is not the first element in the commit message. Maybe bug fixes are merged from another branch (then the message likely starts with “Merge”) or commits from elsewhere are cherry-picked (then the message might be totally different).
Long story short: I’d consider all changes as part of the release and not only those which start with “FP2-”.
Edit: For clarification, you’d have to ask Fairphone staff managing the repository and/or writing code for Fairphone 2. They’ll know.