Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 9 years ago
also, my patchstick.sh doesn't contain any reference to '/dev/sda2' which
should be the recovery partition.
So what step did I miss where i copied a recovery part to the patchstick to get
pushed to the ATV drive ?
Original comment by slcho...@gmail.com
on 27 Sep 2011 at 11:02
I was able to re-partition the HD and get things all synced up, but i still
don't have a ATV OS.
I'm guessing that atvusb creator doesn't have access to a DMG of the recovery
disks anymore, and the 'boot.efi' that i pulled off my patchstick, was the
patchstick setup and not the ATV os.
Original comment by slcho...@gmail.com
on 27 Sep 2011 at 11:30
FYI, after much pain, here is some extra documentation that may be useful
How to re-build an Apple TV with a Dead Hard disk:
1) Fart around on google for a few hours trying to find the quickest,
simplest way to rootkit/rebuild an apple TV, Decide that this is the best
thing :
http://code.google.com/p/atvusb-creator/
... Install the new HD, run the creator, discover that it hangs
2) Fart around on google, to find out how to get the patchstick to boot
into the a unix with a network connection, and discover that you have to
Remove or rename 'patchstick.sh'
... reboot and get a root shell, telnet into the ATV
3) Fart around on google for a few hours trying to work out why the
install failed, and discover that the patchstick is broken, and that it
does't create the rebuild partition correctly.
... check the partition table, discover that it is hosed
4) Fart around on google for a few hours trying to work out what the
partition table should be for the ATV. Eventually find the manual
instructions here:
http://code.google.com/p/atv-bootloader/wiki/ATVBackup
... and manually re-partition the drive, reboot, rerun the patchstick
... and discover that it hangs, again.
5) Fart around on google for a few hours and discover that the patchstick
DOES NOT install the rebuild partition.
6) Fart around on google for a few hours trying to find a recover image
that can be gutted for recovery partition. Eventually find one here:
http://www.iclarified.com/entry/comments.php?enid=970
7) Go back to the atv-bootloader instructions, including the part about
'Opps I did not make a backup' and follow the steps to manually install a
recovery file and factory reset the ATV
8) Finally, re-do the patchstick process, and finally, the ATV boots with
all the plugins and packages
9) Discover that the Patchstick crew have no UI/UX experience and there
is a mess of extra menus and commands that make an ATV interface look
like it was designed by a 3yr old. Sigh. (why do geeks love extra
switches ?)
10) Fart around on google for a few extra hours trying to work out what
the new menus do and how to turn stuff on.
11) Enable boxee, and life is better
Original comment by slcho...@gmail.com
on 28 Sep 2011 at 7:15
you forgot,
0) spend months and months of non-paid time developing the various bits to even
allow patching the atv1 in the first place.
Original comment by sdavi...@gmail.com
on 28 Sep 2011 at 7:37
...And thank them for their hard work. Yes, That is important, I forgot.
But developing *anything* without decent documentation is going to hamper it's
adoption, especially when the developers of "atv-bootloader" say things like:
"ATVUSB-Creator has been released...
Say goodbye to manual creation of an atv-bootloader USB flash drive "
The user community gets confused, and eventually go develop their own solution.
99% of the 'open source' projects out there suffer from low adoption and
fragmentation because they can't get up to speed with the the current project.
Throw a rock at any random project out there (github, google.code, whatever),
go to it's home page and see if the following test is passed :
'Does it say anywhere in the first 3 paragraphs, what this thing does?'
You can't assume that everyone can read everyone's source, or that they have
been following all the threads and issues as closely as the original developers.
Documentation is important. And it should be opened up to the other developers
as much as the code itself.
We should be asking ourselves, "Could someone else do all this is I wasn't
around" instead of "Only I need to know all this, so people will depend on me
for my help"
And, yes, IFF you want someone to re-write, maintain the docs, I'm happy to
help.
Original comment by slcho...@gmail.com
on 28 Sep 2011 at 8:30
Nothing is stopping you from submitting better doc. we alway say "patches
welcome" and that applies to both source code and docs. What I will not do is
open up this project for a free-for-all commit/change by anyone that passes
along. I've had major issues in the past with wiki/issue vandalism and it just
takes too much time to keep after and revert. That goes same for the mailing
lists, you must apply for access. I grant when I get the email request. It
keeps out the spammers.
Original comment by sdavi...@gmail.com
on 28 Sep 2011 at 9:21
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
slcho...@gmail.com
on 27 Sep 2011 at 10:40