And if you don't like Nintendo's decisions, that's fine. Just don't call people fanboys and insult others because they don't agree with you.
*shrugs*
And if you don't like Nintendo's decisions, that's fine. Just don't call people fanboys and insult others because they don't agree with you.
There's plenty of people who forked it before it was deleted, you can do all the stuff you mentioned. They were just cleaning up their repo.Why in the world you want to remove a branch? I understand that you don't want to work on it but it does not hurt if it stays on the github repo, in fact, it could be useful for custom loaders (3ds_injector), the same thing goes for other entrypoints builds on the makefile.
Is not that I care about Luma's new way with Rosalina, after all, there is a fork with the legacy branch above and is not like Luma is the only working CFW/chainloader with b9s; we still have Cakes, ReiNand, the last build of Corbenik, BooCtr9 and CtrBootManager9, we don't need Luma's team shitty decitions, but don't be surprised if support on Luma (from users and other devs) decreaces.
Because what open source project wouldn't remove a discontinued branch? Legacy served a purpose, now it doesn't. How would it, or other entrypoints, be helpful? I don't see your point.Why in the world you want to remove a branch? I understand that you don't want to work on it but it does not hurt if it stays on the github repo, in fact, it could be useful for custom loaders (3ds_injector), the same thing goes for other entrypoints builds on the makefile.
So I don't see what your problem is, just use one of the forks with legacy. And it's not a "shitty" decision to clean up a repo and get rid of a branch we have literally no reason to keep.Is not that I care about Luma's new way with Rosalina, after all, there is a fork with the legacy branch above and is not like Luma is the only working CFW/chainloader with b9s; we still have Cakes, ReiNand, the last build of Corbenik, BooCtr9 and CtrBootManager9, we don't need Luma's team shitty decitions, but don't be surprised if support on Luma (from users and other devs) decreaces.
Just because we pointed out that something was illegal doesn't make it a legal threat.
Why in the world you want to remove a branch? I understand that you don't want to work on it but it does not hurt if it stays on the github repo, in fact, it could be useful for custom loaders (3ds_injector), the same thing goes for other entrypoints builds on the makefile.
Is not that I care about Luma's new way with Rosalina, after all, there is a fork with the legacy branch above and is not like Luma is the only working CFW/chainloader with b9s; we still have Cakes, ReiNand, the last build of Corbenik, BooCtr9 and CtrBootManager9, we don't need Luma's team shitty decitions, but don't be surprised if support on Luma (from users and other devs) decreaces.
It depends on the severity of the bugs fixed typically. Most of the time, there's a set list of features that are implemented before a release, but if there's an especially breaking bug you'll often see a hotfix released after a single or a few commits.@astronautlevel Since you're here, let me ask you a question. I can understand devs releasing a bug fix release after a few commits or even a single commit to fix a bug, but sometimes they make tons of commits without releasing. Why is that? My guess would be they want x, y, and z features or issues resolved before they make another release or maybe they hit some issue(s) they're trying to work out. I'm just curious.
What? You're rambling again. I don't understand what you're saying.Call it what you will. There are only so many ways to take such a statement. To even mention that uploading a file is illegal to a pirate he knows damn well doesn't care, knowing that I upload AIO packs with drag-and-drop card configurations full of firmwares and key files to other sites. It's almost like he's saying "make sure it's got a prominent place in v2" or something.
Maybe your card got corrupted or failing. I would test it.I'm getting the good ol' error of (errdsp) "card removed" when opening pokemon moon, despite pokemon moon working completely fine for the last month that I've had this n2dsxl. It's a cia, and all other of my cias run exactly fine without issue. This only came up today. Any recommendations on how to fix it? I'm reinstalling the game right now, but if that doesn't fix the issue then I'm not sure what to do. I'm running Luma 8.1.1 w/ a n2dsxl.
umm reinand was mainstream before luma. all these people who bitch about luma not letting your turn something off and talk about how reinand is better, need to realize that reinand has no toggles at all. i used to use cakes before i started using luma. i switched to luma because it has everything you need and it's one file as opposed to a bunch you have to track down.You surely never used a CFW like Cakes or ReiNand and just went to a mainstream CFW like Luma.
That looks old. Love the name btw.umm reinand was mainstream before luma. all these people who bitch about luma not letting your turn something off and talk about how reinand is better, need to realize that reinand has no toggles at all. i used to use cakes before i started using luma. i switched to luma because it has everything you need and it's one file as opposed to a bunch you have to track down.
i attached a legacy build for those that want it
Here's newer.@pbanj you need to provide the source code with that build, otherwise you violate the GPL
I am not trying to be mean, but they need to release the source to that binary, not a newer source. Otherwise they are in violation of the GPL3 license
I downloaded just the binary from the net. If I distribute copies, do I have to get the source and distribute that too?
Yes. The general rule is, if you distribute binaries, you must distribute the complete corresponding source code too. The exception for the case where you received a written offer for source code is quite limited.
I'm sure the older source it on that git as well. I just linked to the newer one since I figured the butt hurt people would want the latest.I am not trying to be mean, but they need to release the source to that binary, not a newer source. Otherwise they are in violation of the GPL3 license
I am aware and I am not doing this for me, I am doing it the user. I don't want them to be in violation of the GPL.I'm sure the older source it on that git as well. I just linked to the newer one since I figured the butt hurt people would want the latest.
One of the reasons why I posted the link. I don't think the GPL says you have to give exact link, that it just has to be available. It is in that git.I am aware and I am not doing this for me, I am doing it the user. I don't want them to be in violation of the GPL.
Actually I edited my post to include their quote. The source has to be the same as binaryOne of the reasons why I posted the link. I don't think the GPL says you have to give exact link, that it just has to be available. It is in that git.
@pbanj can deal with it when's back online. I see him more on reddit than on here.Actually I edited my post to include their quote. The source has to be the same as binary
Indeed, he has a life too.@pbanj can deal with it when's back online. I see him more on reddit than on here.