Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

update to O preview 2 API. #625

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 6, 2017
Merged

Conversation

atsushieno
Copy link
Contributor

Note that API Level 26 (O) is not built by default. To build it, you'll have to specify extra make arguments:

make AndroidLatestApiLevel=26 AndroidLatestFrameworkVersion=v7.99.0 AndroidPlatformId=O

(I gave up resolving the uber-complicated MSBuild properties puzzle; changing one does not trigger required others, or triggering unwanted property changes, definitely not worthy of spending more than 3 days and nights.)

Note that API Level 26 (O) is not built by default. To build it, you'll
have to specify extra `make` arguments:

	make AndroidLatestApiLevel=26 AndroidLatestFrameworkVersion=v7.99.0 AndroidPlatformId=O
@garuma
Copy link
Contributor

garuma commented Jun 2, 2017

There is a build issue with O which manifest with _AndroidTargetSdkVersion being set to O by GetJavaPlatformJar invocation which breaks the Aapt task (when not having UseLatestPlatformSdk) that expects an integer to use as API level so that it can pass it to --max-res-version

See diagnostics build output: https://gist.github.com/garuma/7ca3fb189c154375fddbe6cd8d919c37

/cc @dellis1972

@dellis1972
Copy link
Contributor

@atsushieno
Copy link
Contributor Author

I'm not seeing such an issue for two reasons: 1) VSMac will be setting v7.1 as "the latest SDK platform", and 2) I could successfully built a project with v7.99.0.

image

@garuma
Copy link
Contributor

garuma commented Jun 2, 2017

I'm using latest monodroid build (which do seem to reference a xamarin-android commit that has that in).

The value is retrieved from the manifest (where you are supposed to set targetAndroidSdkVersion to 'O') not directly from the target framework selected so you wouldn't see it if you don't do that

@dellis1972
Copy link
Contributor

@garuma what is in the AndroidManifest.xml targetsdk attribute?

@atsushieno
Copy link
Contributor Author

@garuma not sure if you are talking about this PR, which replaces a handful of SDK components. Sounds more like you are trying it with the latest master.

@garuma
Copy link
Contributor

garuma commented Jun 2, 2017

True, I figured it could be tackled in the same pass (since it was maybe not caught on the previous one). I can log something external if needed

@jonpryor jonpryor merged commit aa6b3bf into dotnet:master Jun 6, 2017
jonpryor added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 23, 2020
Changes: dotnet/java-interop@ec4f819...6608c59

  * dotnet/java-interop@6608c59 [generator] Fix generated code that caused CS0169 warnings. (#625)
  * dotnet/java-interop@0537eb1 Bump to xamarin/xamarin-android-tools/d16-7@310c5cf0
  * dotnet/java-interop@59d86de [generator] Add nullable reference types (NRT) support. (#563)
  * dotnet/java-interop@64c2719 [build] Support building with JetBrains OpenJDK 11 (#629)
  * dotnet/java-interop@5a21381 [crc64] Change the hash prefix back to `crc64` (#628)
  * dotnet/java-interop@933876c [crc64] Fix a subtle bug in CRC64 splice-by-8 implementation (#627)
  * dotnet/java-interop@05c0d7d [performance] Improve speed of our CRC-64 hasher (#624)
  * dotnet/java-interop@6100554 [Java.Interop.Tools.Cecil] Change DirectoryAssemblyResolver Warning to Diagnostic Output (#622)
  * dotnet/java-interop@d736086 [generator] simplify life with 'var' in generated code  (#621)

Various `.csproj` files updated to deal with changes from
dotnet/java-interop@9b88ce79, which added a new `Crc64.Table.cs` file
and requires use of C# unsafe code.

Bump the expected sizes of `.apk` files, as dotnet/java-interop@9b88ce7
increased the size of `Mono.Android.dll`.
@github-actions github-actions bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Feb 2, 2024
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants