Of course, I meant: Yes you could technically have an aar without resources in it, ...
This change the meaning quite a bit :\ On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Xavier Ducrohet <[email protected]> wrote: > known issue. > > https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=77162 > > You shouldn't actually use an aar as a provided dependency. This makes no > sense if you have resources. > > (yes you could technically have an aar with resources in it, but we don't > yet handle this case). > > On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Chris Sarbora <[email protected]> wrote: > >> If this isn't already a known bug, I'll create and attach a project that >> reproduces the issue. I've found that using the "provided" configuration >> with a JAR artifact will (correctly) include the jar on the classpath but >> exclude it from the APK, whereas specifying an AAR artifact ends up with >> that code being *included* in the APK. Currently the only workaround I >> have is to hack up the proguard<Variant> task and add the undesired classes >> to an exclude pattern. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "adt-dev" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > > > -- > Xavier Ducrohet > Android SDK Tech Lead > Google Inc. > http://developer.android.com | http://tools.android.com > > Please do not send me questions directly. Thanks! > -- Xavier Ducrohet Android SDK Tech Lead Google Inc. http://developer.android.com | http://tools.android.com Please do not send me questions directly. Thanks! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "adt-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
