OK, because I'm paranoid about this one due to the backlash I think it could get, here's a pull request: https://github.com/apache/cordova-android/pull/270
Can people review it and let me know if this makes sense? Then we can merge it in. On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> wrote: > OK, Last call on this. > > I'm deleting a bunch of the code that's not related to Crosswalk. That > said, it's going to make this obsolete: > > https://software.intel.com/en-us/xdk/articles/android-and-crosswalk-cordova-version-code-issues > > We're not going to do the stupid minSDK mapping anymore because it's > counter to the philosophy of the Cordova project, and it should have never > been done to begin with. However, we're keeping the modification to the > version codes if you're using Crosswalk. > > So, if you're releasing without crosswalk, and you set your version code > to 1, here's what's going to happen: > android-release.apk = Version Code 1 > > If you're releasing WITH CROSSWALK, here's what's going to happen: > android-armv7-release.apk = Version Code 12 > android-x86-release.apk = Version Code 14 > > If you add Crosswalk to a project somewhere along the line, know that > you're going to have to multiply your version code by 10. I hope this > doesn't go past maxInt, but it's the only way I can think of to give > developers back the control they lost with the earlier version code issues. > > If this breaks your stuff, or causes you to have a massive problem (i.e. > You're at version 12, and you somehow have a collision with your Crosswalk > version because you didn't set your sdk version), please let me know now. > > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Carlos Santana <csantan...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> What do you mean by a manual step to set the architecture? >>> >>> meaning that "cordova build" will build one apk by default >>> >>> >> Yes, right now if I set the version code to 1 and do a crosswalk build, I >> would get the following version codes and APKs: >> android-armv6-release.apk - Version Code 12 >> android-x86-release.apk - Version Code 14 >> >> >>> But if they want a specific architecture or multiple built they can do >>> via >>> extra argument to "cordova build" >>> >>> Like cordova build -- --x86 --arm >>> >>> >> I don't think we should do multiple at all. I think we should build just >> one. >> >> So, if you do this cordova build release --arch=arm >> >> You get only >> >> android-armv6-release.apk - Version Code 1 >> >> And then to get the other one you have change the version code to 2 and >> do this: >> >> cordova build release --arch=x86 >> >> android-x86-release.apk - Version Code 2 >> >> >> >>> This is similar for windows platform where user control targets and build >>> via extra flags to build command, or not even related? >>> >>> >> Yes, this issue is open because we're copying how Windows does things. I >> don't know why we're doing a multiple APK build, except that Crosswalk is >> an Intel thing, maybe? >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 5:17 PM Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Carlos Santana <csantan...@gmail.com> >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> > > Avoiding a large APK is kind of a good feature to have, to build >>> small >>> > apk >>> > > targeted to specific architecture. >>> > > >>> > > What's your proposal ? Maybe I missed it >>> > > >>> > > >>> > Step 1. Remove the code that changes version codes but has nothing to >>> do >>> > with architecture and get users to specify the Android Version Code in >>> the >>> > config.xml like so: >>> > <widget android-versionCode="19" id="ca.dontflyhere.app" >>> version="0.0.1" >>> > xmlns="http://www.w3.org/ns/widgets"; xmlns:cdv=" >>> > http://cordova.apache.org/ns/1.0";> >>> > >>> > >>> > > You said to remove multiple apk generation or have multiple apk >>> > generation >>> > > being don in a different way to handle the versionCode per >>> architecture? >>> > > >>> > > >>> > Yeah, for the short term, I think multiplying by 10, and reserving the >>> last >>> > spot to denote x86 or arm isn't an awful solution, but it's far from >>> > ideal. If we can turn off multiple APK generation and add the ability >>> to >>> > set an architecture, then this would turn into a manual step for the >>> > developer to take advantage of, and they can decide if version 11 is >>> arm >>> > and version 12 is x86, but I'm not sure if developers are able to >>> handle >>> > that or want it abstracted, which is why I'm asking. >>> > >>> > >>> > > >>> > > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 4:41 PM Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > > >>> > > > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 1:26 PM, Carlos Santana < >>> csantan...@gmail.com> >>> > > > wrote: >>> > > > >>> > > > > If it's not well documented how this multiple APKs suppose to >>> work >>> > and >>> > > > use. >>> > > > > then I would say the impact is low >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > I disagree, since people using Crosswalk are expecting that >>> behaviour >>> > by >>> > > > default right now. We don't have to built multiple APKs with >>> Crosswalk >>> > > > but bundling both the X86 and the ARM libraries makes the APK 48 >>> MB. >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > > If it's not part of the build.json in --buildConfig spec [1] >>> then >>> > also >>> > > > low >>> > > > > impact. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > I would agree if build.json was universally adopted as the way to >>> do >>> > > > things, and there wasn't multiple ways people were building >>> production >>> > > > apps. Right now, it's more likely that someone would store a >>> > > > settings.gradle file pointing to the keystore instead, especially >>> since >>> > > it >>> > > > doesn't prompt for a password like build.json does. >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > > It would be good to get some of those answers to the questions >>> you >>> > have >>> > > > > about apk requiring different version code on store >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > I just tried to deploy multiple APKs with different architectures >>> on >>> > the >>> > > > play store, you can't do it. If you try, you replace your ARM apk >>> with >>> > > an >>> > > > x86 APK. You have to have a different version code for each of >>> them. >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > > Maybe it make sense to remove it from builde.gradle and move it >>> to >>> > > > > build.json if it's something that is something that comes into >>> play >>> > > when >>> > > > > releasing instead of being normal dev cycle. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > [1]: >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >>> https://cordova.apache.org/docs/en/dev/guide/platforms/android/#signing-an-app >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 4:12 PM Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Carlos Santana < >>> > csantan...@gmail.com >>> > > > >>> > > > > > wrote: >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > > First sorry for my stupid questions :-) >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > Why do we need to mess with this versionCode? >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > Short Answer: We shouldn't have to. >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > Long Answer: We might need it for Crosswalk only. >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > > How a native developer creating a new Android App today using >>> > > Android >>> > > > > > > Studio and gradle handle this? >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > They set it in the Android Manifest like they're supposed to. >>> This >>> > > > > hasn't >>> > > > > > changed AFAIK. Apparently having multiple APKs in the store >>> means >>> > > that >>> > > > > you >>> > > > > > have to have different version codes, although I haven't tested >>> > this >>> > > > yet. >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > > Should that help us determined how it should work for Cordova >>> > Apps? >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > You'd think, but then we wouldn't have this weird system in >>> place >>> > > right >>> > > > > > now. I wish we talked about this more, but this seems to have >>> > mostly >>> > > > > flown >>> > > > > > in under the radar when we were getting Cordova 4.0 out. >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > Can we come with a similar system, or no system, or it's user >>> > space >>> > > > > where >>> > > > > > > they can put a version code they want to use in config.xml in >>> > > > > conjunction >>> > > > > > > with of the version string (i.e. 1.0.0) that they are already >>> > using >>> > > > in. >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > I believe that config.xml already does this, but we then munge >>> it >>> > all >>> > > > up >>> > > > > > because someone thought that we might want to have many APKs >>> > instead >>> > > of >>> > > > > > just one APK for a version of Android. This is something >>> that's >>> > > pissed >>> > > > > off >>> > > > > > various developers over the past year, and the reason I'm >>> asking is >>> > > > > because >>> > > > > > I want to see it deleted, but don't want to break anyone who >>> relies >>> > > on >>> > > > > it. >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 3:58 PM Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com >>> > >>> > > wrote: >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > OK, so, I'm dealing with this code, which pisses me off to >>> no >>> > > end: >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > if (Boolean.valueOf(cdvBuildMultipleApks)) { >>> > > > > > > > productFlavors { >>> > > > > > > > armv7 { >>> > > > > > > > versionCode defaultConfig.versionCode + 2 >>> > > > > > > > ndk { >>> > > > > > > > abiFilters "armeabi-v7a", "" >>> > > > > > > > } >>> > > > > > > > } >>> > > > > > > > x86 { >>> > > > > > > > versionCode defaultConfig.versionCode + 4 >>> > > > > > > > ndk { >>> > > > > > > > abiFilters "x86", "" >>> > > > > > > > } >>> > > > > > > > } >>> > > > > > > > all { >>> > > > > > > > ndk { >>> > > > > > > > abiFilters "all", "" >>> > > > > > > > } >>> > > > > > > > } >>> > > > > > > > } >>> > > > > > > > } else if (!cdvVersionCode) { >>> > > > > > > > def minSdkVersion = cdvMinSdkVersion ?: >>> > > > > > > > privateHelpers.extractIntFromManifest("minSdkVersion") >>> > > > > > > > // Vary versionCode by the two most common API >>> levels: >>> > > > > > > > // 14 is ICS, which is the lowest API level for many >>> > apps. >>> > > > > > > > // 20 is Lollipop, which is the lowest API level for >>> the >>> > > > > > updatable >>> > > > > > > > system webview. >>> > > > > > > > if (minSdkVersion >= 20) { >>> > > > > > > > defaultConfig.versionCode += 9 >>> > > > > > > > } else if (minSdkVersion >= 14) { >>> > > > > > > > defaultConfig.versionCode += 8 >>> > > > > > > > } >>> > > > > > > > } >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > So, right now if you're not using Crosswalk at all, your >>> > default >>> > > > > > version >>> > > > > > > > code will be 18 instead of 1, and 28 for the second >>> version if >>> > > you >>> > > > > > aren't >>> > > > > > > > using Crosswalk. I can see why people would build multiple >>> > APKs >>> > > > per >>> > > > > > > > architectures, but if you're building multiple APKs for >>> > different >>> > > > > > > versions >>> > > > > > > > of Android, we've all done something wrong and we never >>> asked >>> > for >>> > > > > this >>> > > > > > > > feature to be added to Cordova. The whole point of >>> Cordova is >>> > to >>> > > > > work >>> > > > > > > > across multiple platforms, and that does include multiple >>> > > versions >>> > > > of >>> > > > > > > > Android. >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > However, since this stupid code was added back in 4.0.x, >>> I'm >>> > > > > wondering >>> > > > > > if >>> > > > > > > > anyone is relying on this code before I rip it out and have >>> > > version >>> > > > > > codes >>> > > > > > > > mean exactly what they're supposed to mean. That means >>> that >>> > when >>> > > > you >>> > > > > > > build >>> > > > > > > > and release your first app without using Crosswalk, your >>> > > > application >>> > > > > > > > version code will be 1. Not 18, not 19, but 1. Then when >>> you >>> > > > build >>> > > > > > > > another version, that version will be 2, and so on. >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > What do people think of this code going away? Crosswalk >>> will >>> > > > > probably >>> > > > > > > have >>> > > > > > > > to have the different version codes, since I think us >>> defining >>> > a >>> > > > > system >>> > > > > > > > could work better than leaving this up to the user and >>> having >>> > > > things >>> > > > > go >>> > > > > > > > horribly sideways when people are trying to keep track of >>> > whether >>> > > > > they >>> > > > > > > > released an arm or x86 binary, since we already decided to >>> take >>> > > > > > > > responsibility for this. >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > So, feedback on this would be good. >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Darryl Pogue < >>> > dar...@dpogue.ca >>> > > > >>> > > > > > wrote: >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > Not intentionally on my end, but when I add the CrossWalk >>> > > plugin >>> > > > I >>> > > > > > > > > seem to get two APKs as output (one for armv7, one for >>> x86). >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > On 18 February 2016 at 11:05, Joe Bowser < >>> bows...@gmail.com> >>> > > > > wrote: >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > Hey >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > Based on the feedback on those two issues, and other >>> > places, >>> > > I >>> > > > > > think >>> > > > > > > > that >>> > > > > > > > > > most hated change from Cordova-Android 4.0 that we >>> didn't >>> > fix >>> > > > in >>> > > > > > > > > > Cordova-Android 5.0 was the fact that we have an >>> > undocumented >>> > > > way >>> > > > > > of >>> > > > > > > > > > generating an arbitrary build number that makes >>> absolutely >>> > no >>> > > > > > sense. >>> > > > > > > > > > Furthermore, this screws up people's automated builds, >>> and >>> > > can >>> > > > > > cause >>> > > > > > > > the >>> > > > > > > > > > version code to reach MAX_INT. >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > If you want to know why nobody has touched it until >>> now, >>> > it's >>> > > > > > because >>> > > > > > > > > > everyone hates working with Gradle. I can say the >>> exact >>> > same >>> > > > > thing >>> > > > > > > > about >>> > > > > > > > > > why we're not using ProGuard. >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > Now, I'm starting on my flensing of the gradle files >>> that >>> > we >>> > > > have >>> > > > > > in >>> > > > > > > > > here, >>> > > > > > > > > > trying to figure out what we can rip out and I'm >>> wondering >>> > if >>> > > > > > anyone >>> > > > > > > is >>> > > > > > > > > > actually using the multiple APK generation before I >>> remove >>> > > it. >>> > > > If >>> > > > > > > > people >>> > > > > > > > > > are, I'm going to have to figure out another way for >>> this >>> > to >>> > > > > > happen, >>> > > > > > > > > > because this is definitely breaking people's >>> applications, >>> > > and >>> > > > > > using >>> > > > > > > > > random >>> > > > > > > > > > hooks isn't a good answer. >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > So, is anyone using this, or can this feature die! >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > Joe >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: >>> dev-unsubscr...@cordova.apache.org >>> > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: >>> dev-h...@cordova.apache.org >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >>> >> >> >
