#androidsdk

2025-04-28
Hans-Christoph Steinereighthave@librem.one
2025-01-23

So what is the Android team's intention? Should v3.1-only APKs be considered valid? Or not? My guess is they should be not considered valid since the Android team has explicitly marked that kind of signature as invalid since apksigner v30.0.0 (besides v33). Are there any plans to unified the code that verifies APK signatures?

#Android #AndroidSDK #APK #apksigner

2/2

Hans-Christoph Steinereighthave@librem.one
2025-01-23

Interesting bug in #apksigner reported to @fdroidorg: an APK with only a v3.1 signature was only considered valid by v33. <33 error out with "APK Signature Scheme v2 signature 0 indicates the APK is signed using APK Signature Scheme v3 but no such signature was found." >33 error out with "The APK contains a v3.1 signing block without a v3.0 base block". Android uses its own verify code and treats it as valid. gitlab.com/fdroid/fdroidserver

#AndroidSDK #APK

1/2

Hans-Christoph Steinereighthave@librem.one
2025-01-22

In the official release of the #AndroidSDK package "build-tools_r35.0.1_linux.zip", they included what looks like a hand-edited "source.properties" metadata file that is a key part of the "sdkmanager" packaging system:

```
Pkg.UserSrc=false
Pkg.UserSrc=false
Pkg.Revision=35.0.1
#Pkg.Revision=35.0.0 rc4h
```

I mean really? The Android SDK packages are not automatically generated?

gitlab.com/fdroid/sdkmanager/-

#android #sdkmanager

2024-12-16

This is something I usually do during the 🎄 Christmas Holiday 🎄 ... this time I finished it a bit earlier... 👍 :

Here is the #recipe to build the #android 15 #sdk (#api #level 35) from source !

codeberg.org/Starfish/SDK-Rebu

So no need to download the binaries from G***le. Just compile by yourself. The #androidsdk is a collection of tools and binaries needed to #develop #android #apps .

Remember: #foss projects also need a free build chain.

Have fun and take care!

:BoostOK:

2024-11-27

(2/2)

@Suiseiseki
> GNUtoo doesn't post FUD

I'm not saying they're intentionally misleading us, rather that they may be confused. The truth of their claim seems to turn on what is meant by;

"The Android SDK is made available by Google under a proprietary license."

Maybe @fdroidorg can clarify what this means? Specifically, whether or not it translates to;

"F-Droid now uses the nonfree Google SDK to build the applications"

... as GNUtoo claims.

#AndroidSDK #FDroid #SoftwareFreedom

2024-05-11

I can't believe how awful is the #AndroidSDK installation process, and then the subsequent install (eg for NDK) and configuration UI could be.

And then I remember what these vandals did to search and the open web.

#Google are wreckers.

I'm doing this to use with #Tauri and their part of this is a dream.

Hans-Christoph Steinereighthave@librem.one
2024-02-13

I wish the #AndroidSDK team would follow repository best practices and stop silently reissuing binary releases under the same name/version. #MavenCentral does not allow this, for example. The #FDroid transparency log shows the newest violation: two version of sources-34_r01.zip with the file name, version code, and metadata.

gitlab.com/fdroid/android-sdk-

2024-02-08

Big thanks to Kai-Chung Yan, Komal Sukhani (couldn't find them in the Fediverse), @eighthave and everyone else involved for packaging the open source parts of the Android SDK for Debian! 💙
With this I managed to revive an old Android app of mine that stopped working several years ago due to server-side changes.
#AndroidSDK #OpenSource #AndroidApp

Client Info

Server: https://mastodon.social
Version: 2025.04
Repository: https://github.com/cyevgeniy/lmst