Rockbox development discussion ()

Björn Stenberg | 21 Aug 2012 16:43

Archos Recorder build fails: too big

The archos recorder build has tipped over the limit for size, and now the autobuild always fails.

The tipping point was commit bd6e6ed but the code has been growing steadily so I wouldn't say this
particular commit is any more responsible than others before it.

Still, we need to fix this somehow. Maybe someone could take a look at recent features and decide if some of
them might be disabled for the recorder?

Other suggestions?

--

-- 
Björn

headers

Bertrik Sikken | 21 Aug 2012 16:50

Re: Archos Recorder build fails: too big

> The archos recorder build has tipped over the limit for size, and now the
> autobuild always fails.
>
> The tipping point was commit bd6e6ed but the code has been growing
> steadily so I wouldn't say this particular commit is any more responsible
> than others before it.
>
> Still, we need to fix this somehow. Maybe someone could take a look at
> recent features and decide if some of them might be disabled for the
> recorder?
>
> Other suggestions?

As I understood from some brief discussion about this on IRC,
it can also be fixed by creating a bootloader for the archoses.
(I don't know all of the technical details though).

A bootloader should still fit in the available space for a very long time,
there will be no need to cut features for archos rockbox.

With kind regards,
Bertrik

headers

Jonathan Gordon | 22 Aug 2012 02:37

Re: Archos Recorder build fails: too big

On 22 August 2012 00:50, Bertrik Sikken <bertrik <at> sikken.nl> wrote:
>> The archos recorder build has tipped over the limit for size, and now the
>> autobuild always fails.
>>
>> The tipping point was commit bd6e6ed but the code has been growing
>> steadily so I wouldn't say this particular commit is any more responsible
>> than others before it.
>>
>> Still, we need to fix this somehow. Maybe someone could take a look at
>> recent features and decide if some of them might be disabled for the
>> recorder?
>>
>> Other suggestions?
>
> As I understood from some brief discussion about this on IRC,
> it can also be fixed by creating a bootloader for the archoses.
> (I don't know all of the technical details though).
>
> A bootloader should still fit in the available space for a very long time,
> there will be no need to cut features for archos rockbox.
>
> With kind regards,
> Bertrik
>

There is that suggestion, or we could just drop support for HWCODEC
completely... considering so few developers even have the AJBR (and
fewer use it on a regular basis) what does keeping it around give us?

(Continue reading)

headers

Thomas Martitz | 23 Aug 2012 14:56

Re: Archos Recorder build fails: too big

Am 22.08.2012 02:37, schrieb Jonathan Gordon:
> On 22 August 2012 00:50, Bertrik Sikken <bertrik <at> sikken.nl> wrote:
>>> The archos recorder build has tipped over the limit for size, and now the
>>> autobuild always fails.
>>>
>>> The tipping point was commit bd6e6ed but the code has been growing
>>> steadily so I wouldn't say this particular commit is any more responsible
>>> than others before it.
>>>
>>> Still, we need to fix this somehow. Maybe someone could take a look at
>>> recent features and decide if some of them might be disabled for the
>>> recorder?
>>>
>>> Other suggestions?
>> As I understood from some brief discussion about this on IRC,
>> it can also be fixed by creating a bootloader for the archoses.
>> (I don't know all of the technical details though).
>>
>> A bootloader should still fit in the available space for a very long time,
>> there will be no need to cut features for archos rockbox.
>>
>> With kind regards,
>> Bertrik
>>
> There is that suggestion, or we could just drop support for HWCODEC
> completely... considering so few developers even have the AJBR (and
> fewer use it on a regular basis) what does keeping it around give us?

Plus there is nobody maintaining it.

(Continue reading)

headers

Paul Louden | 23 Aug 2012 15:10

Re: Archos Recorder build fails: too big

I'd have to agree that I think it's about time to retire the Archos
builds. HWCodec + Lowmem seems to create an undue burden. It would
most likely be better for the users if a final official Rockbox build
were determined (either a previous release that owners of the hardware
like, or a special version of a current build), put up as the "Final
version" for that hardware, and then if someone does want to maintain
it, it can be forked as a separate project.

Realistically, it's unlikely that hardware is going to get much in the
way of new features from forward-moving Rockbox builds anyway.

headers

Mike Giacomelli | 22 Aug 2012 03:09

RE: Archos Recorder build fails: too big

> There is that suggestion, or we could just drop support for HWCODEC
> completely... considering so few developers even have the AJBR (and
> fewer use it on a regular basis) what does keeping it around give us?

 still prefer option discussed here:

http://www.rockbox.org/mail/archive/rockbox-dev-archive-2011-12/0061.shtml

That is, forking into a legacy branch for low memory targets (SW+HW),
and a SWCODEC only branch.  I think in that thread nearly everyone
agreed that it was a good idea, at least eventually.  Perhaps the time
has come?

Mike

headers

Amaury Pouly | 23 Aug 2012 15:23

Re: Archos Recorder build fails: too big

That is, forking into a legacy branch for low memory targets (SW+HW),
and a SWCODEC only branch. I think in that thread nearly everyone
agreed that it was a good idea, at least eventually. Perhaps the time
has come?

I think that's the best option. Although this is work for Mr Someone, I think it's better to do it now that we still have a few people around with such players. If we wait too much, there will be a time where nobdy has such players and we will have no choice but to simply drop support for it.

headers

Mike Giacomelli | 23 Aug 2012 15:53

RE: Archos Recorder build fails: too big

> Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 08:10:58 -0500
> Subject: Re: Archos Recorder build fails: too big
> From: paulthenerd <at> gmail.com
> To: rockbox-dev <at> cool.haxx.se
>
> I'd have to agree that I think it's about time to retire the Archos
> builds. HWCodec + Lowmem seems to create an undue burden. It would
> most likely be better for the users if a final official Rockbox build
> were determined (either a previous release that owners of the hardware
> like, or a special version of a current build), put up as the "Final
> version" for that hardware, and then if someone does want to maintain
> it, it can be forked as a separate project.

If someone wants to branch it, I can revert the logging to disk
feature, which will hopefully get the builds to fit again.  Then we
can look at into some other clean up and hopefully get a stable
release out before too long.

Mike