current ipodpatcher

[bot47]

Hi there!
Can anyone provide a current build of ipodpatcher (and scramble) as the one linked on the wiki is outdated. Or are there even nightlies of ipodpatcher (and scramble)?

Both win32.

Thanks in advance.

[Febs]

This wiki page is up-to-date (and is linked to from the outdated IpodInstallation wiki page).

[bot47]

Sorry, but I guess you did not understand my question. It's not about the wiki being outdated, but about the linked ipodpatcher executable being outdated. It does not contain the changes document in that diff: http://svn.rockbox.org/viewvc.cgi/trunk/tools/ipodpatcher/ipodpatcher.c?r1=11793&r2=11831

[GodEater]

The "cvs" tag on the end of the version number would lead me to believe linuxstb doesn't want this out there as the release version yet. He'll have to tell you why himself though.

You could always build it yourself if you're THAT keen though.

[Llorean]

Why do you feel you need that change in your iPodpatcher? What about the current official version does not work for you?

[bot47]

I need to add a binary bootloader file (NOT a scrambled one). That functionality added was the only change between 0.5 and 0.6cvs. I am currently unable to set-up a working build environment as cygwin is not THAT well working on vista.

[Llorean]

The old iPodPatchers (0.4c and below) will also work for adding a .bin bootloader.

[bot47]

I know, but I'm just too lazy to extract the partition from the iPod, extract the AppleOS, extract the Nike Software, reassemble it and to rewrite it to the iPod. Tell me, why shall I use the most complicated way?

[Llorean]

Because the files you are asking for aren't available, and you could've done what you wanted to do hours ago if you'd just done it the old way?

As well using scramble (which can be compiled without cygwin) allows you to convert a .bin into a .ipod, so you could've solved the problem that way as well.

You say "why shall I use the most complicated way?" You've spent more than a day not able to do what you want because of an arbitrary wall you've placed in front of yourself. I ask 'You tell me, why are you doing it the most complicated way?"

[bot47]

You want an explanation, you get one:
Last evening after school, I needed to patch my iPod's software. When I did not find any compiled 0.6 on the web, I open that thread hoping somebody has already compiled it and may drop it for tomorrow, because I had still enough homework to do. If just someone dropped the 0.6, I was able to patch it by the time I came from school today. (Hope you understand that sentence.) My rare time is also my excuse for not building scramble on my own.

[GodEater]

I just asked linuxstb on IRC, and he emphatically doesn't want 0.6cvs "out there" yet.

If you want it you have to demonstrate enough technical capability to deal with it's bugginess by building it yourself. If you can't or won't - then you can't have it.

[bot47]

I'm gutted. I've never seen any forum on the web which is as unhelpful as this one here.

[Llorean]

Wait, so the fact that we don't want to make available unstable software is "unhelpful?"

The fact that we've given you MULTIPLE alternative methods of doing what you want to do is "unhelpful?"

Seriously, you have several options now:

1) Wait for it to actually be finished
2) Compile ipodpatcher yourself
3) Compile scramble
4) User the old method.

Just as a note, the old method would've taken you about 30 seconds, after download, less time that it's taken you to respond to us since I suggested it.

Since we've given you 3 alternatives, plus explained to you why the software you want isn't available in binary yet, I assume your claim of "Unhelpful" is due to the fact that we're unwilling to give you the software. I would suggest that there are MANY forums exactly as unhelpful as us. For example, try convincing Microsoft or any major software development house to give you software that's not ready yet, and that may not only not work but cause you to have too lose your music.

Taking it as a given that we cannot give you 0.6cvs, what exactly is it that you want from us?

[bot47]

For example, try convincing Microsoft or any major software development house to give you software that's not ready yet, and that may not only not work but cause you to have too lose your music.

You compare yourselves to "major software" companies  
Must be meant ironically...

The fact that we've given you MULTIPLE alternative methods of doing what you want to do is "unhelpful"?

I just asked you to drop me a build of it, nothing more.

Wait, so the fact that we don't want to make available unstable software is "unhelpful"?

Am I right if I claim that you also deliver (unstable) SVN builds of rockbox?

[linuxstb]

bot47,

Yes, "unstable" SVN builds are made available - but they are automated.

Making an ipodpatcher release means me compiling binaries, asking other people to compile binaries for the other platforms (Mac OS X and 64-bit Linux), and arranging them to be added to the download server.

Don't forget that ipodpatcher is a Rockbox tool - I'm a Rockbox developer/user and don't use IPL.  I made the effort to add support for .bin bootloaders so people could use it with IPL, and you just complain that the binary isn't made available immediately...

ipodpatcher in its current state (both 0.5 and 0.6cvs) is buggy, and I want to fix those bugs before releasing a new version.

In the meantime, anyone is free to compile a binary from CVS and distribute it - we're supposed to be a community after all.