FOX T2 packages for FOXSAT-HDR?

oldmanuk

New Member
The T2 package list is a lot more comprehensive than the Foxsat-HDR one (hpkg.tv/packages.html vs hpkg.tv/foxsat). I wondered if this was just a result of some only being compiled and tested on the T2 because that was what people actively had/used – so I wondered about cross compiling and building .opk packages for the Foxsat.

Unfortunately the src link (hpkg.tv/hdrfoxt2/src/ ) doesn't contain source for the Humax-specific packages, and just relates to existing tarballs from upstream packages.

I see that the T2 webif is available at github.com/hummypkg/webif/ although it seems that the fork/branch with the Foxsat variant of webif is not available?
 
OP
oldmanuk

oldmanuk

New Member
I did spin up a quick Dockerfile with the Foxsat-HDR crosstools (crosstools_sf-linux-2.6.12.0_gcc-3.4.6-20_uclibc-0.9.28-20050817-20070131.tar.bz2) and was able to compile and link some basics
 

Black Hole

May contain traces of nut
You need to understand the history of the CF and the capabilities of the respective machines. The understanding necessary to "root" the Foxsat and HD-FOX/HDR-FOX was first developed by Raydon on the Foxsat, and then af123 cracked it for the HDR-FOX. The Foxsat is less powerful than the HDR-FOX, and they have differing capabilities (eg no DLNA server on a Foxsat) and differing inconveniences in the design of their stock firmware. Therefore, initially, the two user groups had different priorities. So the Foxsat and HDR-FOX CFs were separate developments.

However, they are sufficiently similar to be able to port (with modification) software from one to the other, so the Mediatomb package (for example), first ported to the Foxsat to make up for its lack of DLNA, got picked up by the HDR-FOX CF (where it can be useful if somebody wants to store and stream media files that are not compatible with the stock DLNA server - a niche requirement!).

Because of af123's enthusiasm and developing software skills, the hardware capability of the HDR-FOX, the enthusiasm and contributions of the HDR-FOX community, and possibility that we have our own forum instead of being hobbled by Raydon's choice to support the Foxsat CF only via a avforums, the CF developed much further than the Foxsat CF.

If you had looked at the Foxsat CF 5 years ago (maybe), the front end would have looked completely different from the HDR-FOX's relatively slick WebIF. MofTot (I believe) is largely responsible for back-porting the HDR-FOX CF to the Foxsat, and is certainly responsible for extending RS to the Foxsat, Raydon apparently having dropped out of the scene. If af123 had also dropped out for any reason (his enormous contribution is entirely voluntary, and circumstances and interests can shift), we wouldn't have what we have (although recently we have picked up a couple of guys who seem to have the skills to pick it up and run with it).

I suggest, if you have any leanings towards developing the Foxsat CF further, you start a conversation with MofTot who will be able to explain the differences and blind alleys. You must keep hardware limitations and architecture differences in mind, and Raydon might not have made all his source code publicly available.
 

af123

Administrator
Staff member
If you had looked at the Foxsat CF 5 years ago (maybe), the front end would have looked completely different from the HDR-FOX's relatively slick WebIF. MofTot (I believe) is largely responsible for back-porting the HDR-FOX CF to the Foxsat, and is certainly responsible for extending RS to the Foxsat
@adrianf36 gets the credit for porting the HDR-Fox web interface and associated utilities over to the Foxsat initially, others have since extended it over there but I don't follow that closely.

As Black Hole said, the custom firmware for the two platforms have had separate evolution although occasional cross-pollination, RS being the last such big component to make the jump (and the amount of work required by Moftot to achieve this was significant!)
 
OP
oldmanuk

oldmanuk

New Member
Cool. Thanks for the explanation of the differing paths.

Is there a specific reason why certain packages haven't had their source released? As there's no commercial aspect and no obvious reason to protect it, I wasn't sure why people hadn't been uploading source packages to go with the built opk files?
 

adrianf36

Member
Thanks for the credit @af123. No hard and fast reason why source hasn't been uploaded really @oldmanuk . The majority of the Foxsat utilities required by the Web Interface (HMT File parser, EPG parser etc.) were ported/modified from the @af123 T2 originals so the source wasn't mine to publish in many ways. Just never got round to having that conversation with @af123 before my circumstances changed. I haven't really had any time for the Foxsat stuff for the last year or two unfortunately. And, as @Black Hole and others have said, the Foxsat's hardware is somewhat lacking in "grunt" which limits possibilities to a certain extent.

Personally, my Foxsat is still in daily use but I never use the Web Interface or any of the utilities I was involved in creating. It works just fine as a PVR for my purposes. I've gone a different route (TVHeadend) as a Plan B for when the Foxsat finally dies on me - although it's showing no signs of doing so just yet. Happy to consider making source code for various utilities available if someone wants to take things any further (and subject to any permission required from original authors).
 

Black Hole

May contain traces of nut
As there's no commercial aspect and no obvious reason to protect it
Regardless of there not being commercial issues, people are people and some simply don't want to share - they're happy for you to use what they've done, but they're not going to show you how they did it. I can understand that.

What I don't understand is why people are prepared to undermine other people's livelihoods by making proprietary information available for free when anyone with a need for that information used to be prepared to pay for it (in a book, or by consultation). I guess people do that because they get kudos for having their name up there - and those are people not trying to make a living from it because it's not their professional area or they're already set up for life. And the ISPs get rich because everyone pays them for access to this free information (even though the ISPs did nothing to put it there).

These arguments don't apply to what we're doing here - we are not undermining an existing business, and I doubt Humax would allow a business enterprise to be doing this anyway.
 
OP
oldmanuk

oldmanuk

New Member
So @af123 – would you be willing to pushing the source to the core utilities like the hmt and epg parsers onto github (e.g., under github.com/hummypkg) ? Ideally with the Foxsat HDR patches by @adrianf36 too
 

af123

Administrator
Staff member
So @af123 – would you be willing to pushing the source to the core utilities like the hmt and epg parsers onto github (e.g., under github.com/hummypkg) ? Ideally with the Foxsat HDR patches by @adrianf36 too
Yes, I've been thinking of doing that for some of them anyway. I want to review each as I do it and I'll try and import the old revision history too, so it will take a bit of time. Do you have a preference for which one I tackle first? If not, I'll start with the epg utility.
The foxsat sources could go in as a branch if @adrianf26 is willing.
 

adrianf36

Member
@oldmanuk . I've spoken with @af123 and, between us, we'll make the source for the EPG parser available. I must warn that it won't be a quick process though I'm afraid. I have very limited time for "Foxsat stuff" these days. Probably not what you want to hear, but it's likely to be early March before you see anything. If I haven't posted back by mid-March please give me a nudge.
 
OP
oldmanuk

oldmanuk

New Member
@adrianf36 as you asked me to ping you a reminder, here's your reminder :)

@af123 has kindly made hummypkg/epg and hummypkg/hmt available now on github, so it'd be great if we could have the Foxsat patches available to apply on top
 

prpr

Well-Known Member
"Password does not pass complexity requirements."
without telling you what the requirements are. Hmmm....
 

EEPhil

Number 28
"Password does not pass complexity requirements."
without telling you what the requirements are. Hmmm....
Been there! The IET changed their password requirements - after finding out what they were I now need a very long password with mixed case, numbers and punctuation in it. I was that p'd off my password contains various vulgarities. So I hope no one hacks the password file. :eek: :D
 

prpr

Well-Known Member
So I hope no one hacks the password file.
Hopefully they're stored encrypted, so nobody can tell what you've set!
(I started saving my £100, or whatever it is now, several years ago, having been a member for 25+ years.)
 
Top