[b2g] Failed to sync B2G repo for Galaxy Nexus

Hi all, I have been receiving this error output while getting the b2g build for the Galaxy Nexus: Unable to get pack index http://android.git.linaro.org/git-ro/platform/frameworks/base/objects/pack/pack-eaa1e1d4f22adc1a73b2fa0107fc8b7d036c64dd.idx error: Unable to get pack index http://android.gi

[b2g] Project Silk Part 2: Touch Resampling

Hi all, I just enabled part 2 of Silk, bug 1062331, touch resampling. You can read all about touch resampling here (http://www.masonchang.com/blog/2014/8/11/smooth-scrolling-frame-uniformity-touch-interpolation-and-touch-responsiveness

Re: [b2g] Can we deprecate packaged apps?

Thanks for all of the feedback so far! I've submitted a new proposal for "Privileged Hosted Apps" to the dev-webapi mailing list. Feedback very welcome https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.webapi/pCY77YAg_i4 ___ dev-b2g mailing list dev-b2

Re: [b2g] B2G cannot config for flame-kk today. Bad revision on platform_bootable_recovery

Hi, Yeah, all is fine again after re-cloning b2g. Think .repo got corrupted. On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 6:09 PM, Naoki Hirata wrote: > Hi Jan, > > I think Thomas is right. I've had issues like this before. > Perhaps try removing the .repo and running the config.sh script will > resolve your issue?

Re: [b2g] B2G cannot config for flame-kk today. Bad revision on platform_bootable_recovery

Hi Jan, I think Thomas is right. I've had issues like this before. Perhaps try removing the .repo and running the config.sh script will resolve your issue? I tried building on friday and it worked fine for me. (minus the gecko being a couple of days behind, due to another issue; I resolved t

Re: [b2g] Can we deprecate packaged apps?

That sounds like a good idea for a manifest property. On 02/02/15 17:50, Benjamin Kelly wrote: > > > Reminds me of this post from Christian Heilmann: > > > http://christianheilmann.com/2014/12/08/the-next-ux-challenge-on-the-web-gaining-offline-trust/ > > Seems like improving trust in hosted

Re: [b2g] Can we deprecate packaged apps?

On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Matěj Cepl wrote: > On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 07:56:44AM -0800, Fabrice Desré wrote: > >> What were their worries? Could you host your authenticator in you >> private network? >> > > Well, sorry, I thought it is obvious. THe worry was that the author of the > authen

Re: [b2g] Can we deprecate packaged apps?

On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 07:56:44AM -0800, Fabrice Desré wrote: What were their worries? Could you host your authenticator in you private network? Well, sorry, I thought it is obvious. THe worry was that the author of the authenticator hosted on his website, can change the code underneath me a

Re: [b2g] Can we deprecate packaged apps?

On 02/02/2015 07:31 AM, Benjamin Francis wrote: > The only use case that can be complex I could think of is peer-to-peer > app sharing. These web apps installed w/o a direct connection to it's > origin would need some way to authenticate, or we would have to again > throw it into a

Re: [b2g] Can we deprecate packaged apps?

On 02/02/2015 06:03 AM, =?UTF-8?Q?Mat=C4=9Bj?= Cepl wrote: > On 2015-01-30, 14:48 GMT, Benjamin Francis wrote: >> One of the main themes in suggestions for Firefox OS 3.0 has been to make >> the OS more "webby", moving away from packaged apps to something >> inherently >> more web-like, and even tu

Re: [b2g] GCC version to build Firefox OS

On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 3:16:00 PM UTC+2, an wrote: > On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 3:13:37 PM UTC+2, Gabriele Svelto wrote: > > On 02/02/2015 09:09, an wrote: > > > So what's the final word on this, can B2G be built with gcc 4.9 or not? > > > I'm on Arch Linux and there seems to be some p

Re: [b2g] building B2G for Zen 105

Just to explain better, picture of how the screen looks: http://i59.tinypic.com/2j33cls.jpg This is badly taken picture - it looks slightly better than this. The lower half is stuck that way after the bootloader. In the upper half, both the left and right halves are active screens - the time u

Re: [b2g] Can we deprecate packaged apps?

On 1 February 2015 at 11:16, Tim Guan-tin Chien wrote: > Your use case doesn't necessary has to be fulfilled by packaged apps. > Deployment can always be delegated to 3rd-parties instead of running > your own server. Marketplace can certainly support anything other than > a zip file if we decided

Re: [b2g] Can we deprecate packaged apps?

On 31 January 2015 at 06:05, Rajat Kosh wrote: > Yes, I totally agree. For a country like INDIA where, Internet is not > accessible by every third person. I don’t think making Everything as Hosted > will be a Good Idea. Even though, the firefox OS phones are really > affordable in INDIA (like 25

Re: [b2g] Can we deprecate packaged apps?

On 31 January 2015 at 11:25, wrote: > I think for issues that require certification, the key thing is allowing > them to be updated separately or in a more controlled way. I am thinking in > apps or parts of the system that affect regulated features (e.g. Dialer and > Emergency Calls, Notificatio

[b2g] Parent process APZ enabled on master

Hi all, Just a heads-up that over the weekend we landed patches (bug 950934 and dependencies) to enable the async pan/zoom controller in the B2G parent process. Hopefully the only impact should be that a few things like element chooser popups scroll more smoothly. If you notice any regressions in

Re: [b2g] Can we deprecate packaged apps?

On 2015-01-30, 14:48 GMT, Benjamin Francis wrote: One of the main themes in suggestions for Firefox OS 3.0 has been to make the OS more "webby", moving away from packaged apps to something inherently more web-like, and even turning the built-in Gaia apps into hosted apps. So what is the answer

Re: [b2g] building B2G for Zen 105

Thank you! Is it considered a bug if an official device (https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/os/devices/#zen_105fire) B2G cannot be built from official sources? Would it make sense to file a bug? ___ dev-b2g mailing list dev-b2g@lists.mozilla.org h

Re: [b2g] GCC version to build Firefox OS

On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 3:13:37 PM UTC+2, Gabriele Svelto wrote: > On 02/02/2015 09:09, an wrote: > > So what's the final word on this, can B2G be built with gcc 4.9 or not? I'm > > on Arch Linux and there seems to be some problems with gcc 4.6, must I > > rescue my Debian partition? > >

Re: [b2g] GCC version to build Firefox OS

On 02/02/2015 09:09, an wrote: > So what's the final word on this, can B2G be built with gcc 4.9 or not? I'm > on Arch Linux and there seems to be some problems with gcc 4.6, must I rescue > my Debian partition? I've been compiling B2G with gcc-4.9.2 for a few weeks now and never encountered a p

Re: [b2g] building B2G for Zen 105

On 01/02/2015 18:36, g2 wrote: > (btw: how does one build a specific part using ./build.sh? is there some may > to do the equivalent of ./build.sh kernel or ./build.sh mali.ko) First source the proper environment: $ source setup.sh Once you've done this you can build stuff directly with make, e

Re: [b2g] B2G cannot config for flame-kk today. Bad revision on platform_bootable_recovery

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 7:15:17 PM UTC+1, Jan Jongboom wrote: > error.GitError: platform_bootable_recovery rev-list > ('^26e78a979f3090dc196219e268467620b6c40ec5', 'HEAD', '--'): fatal: bad > object 26e78a979f3090dc196219e268467620b6c40ec5 > > Anyone encountered this as well? Seems unrel

Re: [b2g] B2G cannot config for flame-kk today. Bad revision on platform_bootable_recovery

Hi I sometimes see this after I worked in a local branch and the upstream repository changed. I don't know why this happens, but removing the local checkout of the repo and running 'config.sh' solves the problem for me. Best regards Thomas Am 30.01.2015 um 19:15 schrieb Jan Jongboom: > error.Git

Re: [b2g] GCC version to build Firefox OS

I'm on Arch too, see [1]. I've no problems compiling Gecko. [1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Firefox_OS/Firefox_OS_build_prerequisites#Arch_Linux On 02/02/15 09:09, an wrote: On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 3:26:24 PM UTC+2, Kyle Huey wrote: That's because code was (incorrectly) chec

Re: [b2g] GCC version to build Firefox OS

On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 3:26:24 PM UTC+2, Kyle Huey wrote: > That's because code was (incorrectly) checked in that requires gcc 4.7 to > build. Gecko is going to continue to only require 4.6 for the time being. > > - Kyle > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 7:07 PM, Shian-Yow Wu