On the S3 it works fine and smooth so far, but the S5 starts new again and again after a few seconds of booting.
When a device doesn’t boot at all you have to make an engineering build and get a full logcat.
It is likely the deblobber.
Same command from above is helpful:
abd logcat -b all -d | grep -i -e dlopen -e \.so
It can also be selinux, so I recommend making the eng build with selinux disabled.
In the device makefile you can append androidboot.selinux=permissive.
If you can’t make a build, I will try to make one soonish.
Apologies, but I’d rather not have any obligations at all.
go towards you and your own efforts?
There is a donation line but it is commented out. Stripe is absolutely proprietary and I don’t like the current implementation of most cryptocurrencies.
You release an untested ROM (now marked as “broken”) divested-16.0-20200510-dos-klte.
When a device doesn’t boot at all
On the S3 it works fine and smooth so far, but the S5 starts new again and again after a few seconds of booting.
When a device doesn’t boot at all you have to make an engineering build and get a full logcat.
It is likely the deblobber.
Same command from above is helpful:
abd logcat -b all -d | grep -i -e dlopen -e .so
It can also be selinux, so I recommend making the eng build with selinux disabled.
In the device makefile you can append androidboot.selinux=permissive.
If you can’t make a build, I will try to make one soonish.
It is not uncommon for bugs to be in a build. But nine weeks after the initial release asking the user to do an “engineering build” when the device does not boot is a new negative experience for me and leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. Is DivestOS (DOS) intended for advanced users or developers - and not for the normal user who wants to use a custom rom like LineageOS?
If a working Lineage 16.0 serves as a basis for DOS, but this is changed, then the developer should also call the device his own to be able to control his work personally in advance.
It is unfortunately a frequently encountered bad habit to deliver untested software to the interested user to let the product mature at the customer - keyword banana-software / bananaware.
Your DivestOS premiere fell into the water for me. But DOS get a second chance if it is repaired as soon as possible.
@fossys, Bootloops aren’t new. They’re not new for s5 or LineageOS. Some of the “biggest” projects put out untested ROMs, and buggy ROMs, and let people test and give feedback.
It took weeks after first release of LineageOS 17 for my device before the Calendar (a basic, default app) worked for me.
bitter taste… second chance if it is repaired as soon as possible.
The website speaks of
The website is also clear about expectations and schedules.
Releases are typically done on a monthly schedule unless there are major or security related changes.
Disclaimer
Rarely will these builds be fully tested as we don’t have every device we build for, due to that these are provided without warranty and can damage your device. We are not liable for any damage done by using these, and you yourself will be at fault.
Please stop wasting @SkewedZeppelin 's time on less relevant details (aka bitching) so they can have fun fixing the issues.
@anon46495926, it makes a huge difference if the LineageOS open source community debuts with a completely new LineageOS 17.1 (as the direct successor of LineageOS 16.0) or if DivestOS (as an unofficial soft fork of LineageOS) makes changes to this source code based on LineageOS.
The team of “The LineageOS Project” has done a great job and continues to do so with ROMs for LOS 16.0 and LOS 17.1. DivestOS Mobil, a newcomer on the fork market, has to measure up to the work of “The LineageOS Project”.
“My personal project” with 60(!) devices. Well, with this quantity the quality must inevitably fall by the wayside. GrapheneOS is often called a one-man show. There 4+2 devices are maintained by one developer. More isn’t feasible. The personal project of ‘SkewedZeppelin’ takes care of ten times more equipment.
The DivestOS project - “A privacy oriented Android distribution” - raises numerous questions, as also visible in other forums. Whether ‘SkewedZeppelin’ asks these questions or not, he can decide for himself - and doesn’t need an ‘justsomeguy’.
@anon46495926 “just some guy”, please stop describing other people’s opinions and questions unwilling or stubborn behavior (“aka bitchy”) and stay objective.
a new negative experience for me and leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.
please stop describing other people’s opinions and questions unwilling or stubborn behavior (“aka bitchy”) and stay objective.
Don’t ask me to “stay objective” after you’ve already been subjective. Less concise: My experience of your comments leaves a bitter taste in my mouth, or a whiny noise in my ear. You are free to ignore.
GrapheneOS is often called a one-man show.
But Github shows 3 IDs on the team.
with this quantity the quality must inevitably fall by the wayside.
Thanks for your prediction, but we don’t know what someone can accomplish, until they do it, or don’t.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
Theodore Roosevelt
With this comment I will leave the discussion. Its a free internet, you are all certainly entitled to your own opinion, but if you don’t like DivestOS, there’s no one forcing you to use it. Perhaps if you tried it and don’t like it, why not just say, “thanks, but not for me” and walk away?
We should always be allowed to critisize, and analyze some creative work. But we can do so without being critical. If you are sure his ROM is a failure, then words are not needed for it to fall. If we spent more time trying to help or building something constructive, rather than tearing down (or into) others work, imagine what we’d get done.
For @SkewedZeppelin, what this person is doing is admirable, it takes a lot of time and effort. Maybe this will be the best ROM ever, maybe not, looks like some care went into it. Bravo.
Really? I think we all actually goosed that a couple of years back:
To criticize is indeed to be critical. Of course - the words chosen and methods used to do so will result in critique that is either constructive or destructive.
And I cannot agree more. I do believe there is a sense of frustration on the part of dear @fossys . I can also appreciate this, though of course, I am also frustrated by the shear volume of forked projects that never seem to achieve fruition, while also locking in ‘propitiatory’ developments that once more will leave a lot of hard work required by others to achieve similar results - if it is at all possible.
I would indeed be more than happy to put together a team and finance to support the developments of this project (or any other project for that matter - if it will provide a possibility for my own humanitarian goals to be met) , but indeed, the lack of desire on the part of @SkewedZeppelin to even broach the subject with me in a more expansive fashion will not result in any progress towards me helping him achieve his goals.
Of course - he is more than entitled to do as he pleases. That is - until choice is removed from our global governance equation.
I do find it sad that many previous projects (copperhead to name only one) have been fraught with deception, backstabbing and general disruption, that have not only had negative repercussions on the developers, but also the client base (users/customers/individuals or whatever you wish to refer to them as) where upon everyone suffers, and developments stagnate or bottleneck.
Realistically - it will be a struggle as an individual to maintain that which he seeks to achieve with this development. Of course - I do hope I am wrong.
In any case - I wish DivestOS and @SkewedZeppelin every success.
The installation of DivestOS Mobile on a Samsung Galaxy S4 GT-I9505 (jfltexx) was done via adb sideload without any special incidents.
Surprising was like for him as well as for me the automatic installation of “DivestOS Recovery” - a fork of “Lineage Recovery”.
Did I just overlook a corresponding hint about the automatic installation of “DivestOS Recovery”? At least the system was not also automatically encrypted like here with the LG G3.
Yes, in the “Developer Options” you will find a switch called "Update recovery ". This is a very handy feature of LineageOS 17.1, it can be used to update the build-in recovery with System OTA Updates. But - does this also work with “DivestOS Recovery”?
EDIT: Two pictures added
Note: The wallpaper for the home screen of the last two pictures was changed by me.
UPDATE:
“DivestOS Recovery” is extremely dominant and persistent. Flashing of TWRP Recovery via Heimdall and immediate rebooting (three times for security reasons) into TWRP Recovery worked, but TWRP remains only temporarily available. After a system start into DivestOS and subsequent booting into the device recovery “DivestOS Recovery” is present again.
Well, “TWRP Recovery” might not be perfectly adapted for LineageOS 17.1 yet, but it usually works well with the original LOS 17.1 as well as unofficial LOS 17.1 distributions. To eliminate “DivestOS Recovery” for good, I had to flash the Android Stock ROM.
Even if nobody thinks it is the truth, I would have liked to report positive aspects, but this is the end of my DivestOS exploration.
The recovery will be automatically installed/updated on boot of DivestOS.
To disable this you can flash via TWRP which will move the patch file out of the way.
was not also automatically encrypted
That is concerning.
All devices have forceencrypt set. There is no reason it wasn’t encrypted by default.
Strange.
Ah, jf-common uses encryptable=footer, which won’t be changed automatically as I observed many devices using footer have broken encryption. I will tweak that.
@SkewedZeppelin, Saw the 0626 shamu download and installed. Others still cannot hear me now from shamu.
Another oddity: Time is set for network time zone, it shows correct time zone, but time shown is 2 hours too high/late.
Shown under Trust, Android security patches:
Platform: up to date
Vendor: out of date
I assume it’s because Motorola is no longer putting out updates?
Or should I go install the last Google image to make sure my firmware is “right?”
Feedback on the download file verifications. gpg verify wants a “detached signature”:
$ gpg --verify divested*sha512sum
gpg: not a detached signature
Checksums look OK, with warnings:
$ sha512sum -c divested*sha512sum
divested-17.1-20200626-dos-shamu-recovery.img: OK
sha512sum: WARNING: 10 lines are improperly formatted
divested-17.1-20200626-dos-shamu.zip: OK
sha512sum: WARNING: 10 lines are improperly formatted
So, edited sha512sum files to remove checksums and only leave signatures. Then,
got “BAD signature”:
$ gpg --verify divested-17.1-20200626-dos-shamu-recovery.img.asc
gpg: assuming signed data in ‘divested-17.1-20200626-dos-shamu-recovery.img’
gpg: can’t handle text lines longer than 19995 characters
gpg: Signature made Thu 25 Jun 2020 08:40:58 PM EDT
gpg: using EDDSA key B8744D67F9F1E14E145DFD8E7F627E920F316994
gpg: BAD signature from “DivestOS Release Signing (2020 #1) <support+releasesigning at divestos dot org>” [unknown]
$ gpg --verify divested-17.1-20200626-dos-shamu.zip.asc
gpg: assuming signed data in ‘divested-17.1-20200626-dos-shamu.zip’
gpg: Signature made Thu 25 Jun 2020 08:40:58 PM EDT
gpg: using EDDSA key B8744D67F9F1E14E145DFD8E7F627E920F316994
gpg: BAD signature from “DivestOS Release Signing (2020 #1) <support+releasesigning at divestos dot org>” [unknown]
