iode-6.1-20250328-tangorpro.zip
Source and install instructions:
Nice to have a tablet build, I know some people will be interested in this. I was considering making one but happy for you to have beat me to it!
2 Likes
I coordinated with @ronnz98 to post his Pixel builds to the “Unofficial builds for Google Pixel devices” thread, so check there for any updates. The top post is an editable wiki, so if any other unofficial Pixel builds are made, post them there as well!
Suggestion
The ROM designation “unofficial” does not evoke any positive associations for me at first glance. I know from experience that “unofficial” CustomROMs do not have to be of lower quality than ‘official’ stable ones, but it would reduce the inhibition threshold to use them for the first time if the list included an item such as “Functionality tested” or “Functionality untested”.
1 Like
Most of the unofficial build publicised in these forums are “Functionality untested”, because the builders do not have
- access to devices for testing
- time, resources, or motivation to test any functionality, or do anything much beyond making and publicising the builds
EDIT:
Also, I don’t know how much testing gets done, even on official builds. I don’t believe the Iodé team have the resources to do proper functional testing for every build on every device that they make or publish. When I worked for Ericsson and Sony Ericsson making Symbian smartphones (1998-2008) they had a testing team of around 30 engineers. mostly doing testing on a very small number of devices at any one time. I believe that the Iodé team is nowhere near that size 
1 Like
these ROMs are unofficial and should remain named as such
these ROMs are unofficial and should remain named as such
What should be does not necessarily have to be.
Neither iode .tech nor lineageos .org label their builds “official”.
The /e/OS is different: here there are /e/OS “official” and “commuity” builds
The positive form “official” vs positive form of “unoffical” could be e.g. “private” or “personal” or …
Since this list is editable, community members could contribute their experience with the respective builds and change the status from “xxx” or “No!”, for example:
|Device | iodéOS / Android / LOS version | Latest iodéOS build | Porter | Tested |
|:-- | :-- | :-- | :–|
|Pixel 3a sargo | v6.x / A15 / 22.1 | 6.2 | @rik | yes |
|Pixel 3a XL bonito | v6.x / A15 / 22.1 | 6.2 | @rik | xxx |
|Pixel 3 XL crosshatch | v6.x / A15 / 22.1 | 6.2 | @rik | yes |
For a new installation, …
For updates from previous …
The iode.tech website contains the page iodéOS official supported devices - iodé which
- lists officially supported devices
- links to a a list in this forum of unofficially supported models
Plenty of references is the LineageOS Wiki pages to official and unofficial builds e.g, Frequently Asked Questions | LineageOS Wiki
The /e/OS is different: here there are /e/OS “official” and “commuity” builds
That used to be “official” and “unofficial” (and “custom”), and there used to be a very clear statement of what qualified for each build type, which is the definition we continue to use for our unofficial IodéOS (and LineageOS for microG) builds : basically
- Official builds are made and released by /e/ or Iodé and signed with their official keys
- Unofficial builds are built using the same unmodified source code as official builds, but are not built by the company, and are signed with the builder’s own keys, or with test keys
- Custom builds are built with source code that is has been modified in some way.
That was admirably clear, and it is a shame they changed their definitions, to blur the distinction between builds made by /e/ but not fully tested, and builds made by community members. But the unofficial builds in this and other threads all qualify as ‘unofficial’ according to the definition: i.e. they are built using unmodified source code and signed with the keys of the builder.
As stated in another thread.
These builds are definitely “unofficial” … The fact that the name of the ROM zip files do not include the text “UNOFFICIAL” is a bug in the Docker image that we use for building , which I hope will be corrected soon.
I like the bug in the Docker image. And as long as the ROM builder is a trustworthy contemporary, there’s nothing wrong with signing his builds with his own keys. This is always more functional than test keys.