Installation / Removal > Sandisk - Installation/Removal
Can't Install Rockbox... e260 Sansa not detected
bluebrother:
--- Quote from: haithun on January 07, 2009, 11:53:29 AM ---i found a way how bring rockbox back on your player its no really good solutions but one
because you just need to bootloader to let rockbox run take the rockbox utility 1.0.7b its the newest one that works than you copy rockbox 3.1 manually to the player
--- End quote ---
Please be more specific -- it doesn't help us fixing bugs if we don't have detailed information. Which version of Rockbox Utility did you try before, what OS are you running? What exactly is the error message when trying to install the bootloader? Are you using the Quick Start setup or the individual bootloader button? Bootloader installation was reworked with Rockbox Utility 1.0.8 and it's possible that there is a bug (though I have tested e200 installation myself and it worked flawlessly).
haithun:
sorry for that. i've a win xp sp 3 and i used rochbox utility 1.0.9 and 1.0.8 with dll
the problem is that he first detects the sansa but than at the installation screen (all the bootloader installation, the complete and quick installation) he can´t find my sansa but i see it at the exporer.
i think the problem is at the detection because my "version.sdk" file at player says that i have a v1 with firmware version 1.02.24E but the "version.txt" says that the firmware version is 3.02.24E
this seems to be the problem that the rockboxutility has a mistake at the detection at the installation screen(it is a v1 beause rockbox ran before on it)
but i can install rockbox with the install rockbox button
bluebrother:
--- Quote from: haithun on January 08, 2009, 06:10:07 AM ---the problem is that he first detects the sansa
--- End quote ---
Meaning detecting using the "Autodetection" functionality in the configuration dialog? Does it figure the correct drive letter?
--- Quote ---i think the problem is at the detection because my "version.sdk" file at player says that i have a v1 with firmware version 1.02.24E but the "version.txt" says that the firmware version is 3.02.24E
--- End quote ---
No, that's definitely not the issue. You need to distinguish between autodetection as done in the configuration dialog, which also utilizes USB IDs to identify the player (which is used in case of the e200) and the detection done during bootloader installation. This is done to verify that you install the bootloader on a real player as it requires writing directly to the disk to put the bootloader in the firmware partition. That partition won't show up in Windows Explorer, thus the player showing up with a drive letter doesn't tell anything if installing the bootloader will work. If you would install the bootloader to a drive that is not an e200 you would cause damage to the filesystem on that drive, thus this additional check is necessary.
But using the older 1.0.7 of Rockbox Utility works with the same setup (same computer, player attached to the same USB port, same user logged in)?
--- Quote ---but i can install rockbox with the install rockbox button
--- End quote ---
Installing Rockbox is simply unzipping an archive to the player. This applies to all packages you can install except the bootloader. Thus, as long as the drive letter of the player is correct, this will work just fine -- you could even install to any hard drive (which of course wouldn't make much sense).
haithun:
yeah,
i mean the autodetect function and he find the drive letter and the type of player
and yes if you use the same user(i use "SuRun" a program that imitates the vista admin control but I've tested already as usual admin),the same PC, the same player, the same USB port with older rockbox utility 1.0.7 and 1.0.7b it works but you than need 1.0.9 to put rockbox 3.1 on it or you do manually
maybe you can make a rockbox utility version that is like 1.0.9 but with the old part for bootloader
bluebrother:
--- Quote from: haithun on January 08, 2009, 09:22:24 AM ---maybe you can make a rockbox utility version that is like 1.0.9 but with the old part for bootloader
--- End quote ---
No. There is absolutely no point in that -- fixing bugs isn't done by rolling back changes (or improvements, like in that case -- the only annoying thing is that a bug came in).
Nevertheless, I managed to identify the issue. It's caused by Windows inability to open a device multiple times (or linux capability of doing that -- as linux is my main development OS it seems I overlooked testing exactly this combination with windows).
Maybe someone shouldn't make releases just before leaving for christmas ...
Edit: for the record, this was also reported as http://www.rockbox.org/tracker/task/9729 (unfortunately with much less information than in this thread).
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version