Hans-Christoph SteinerOn #Google's official download page for the #AndroidSDK they list a column "SHA-256 checksum" but then provide a SHA1 value. WTF?
https://developer.android.com/studio#command-line-tools-only
Alvin Ashcraft 🐿️The Fourth Beta of Android 17
https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2026/04/the-fourth-beta-of-android-17.html
Reddit Tech VN BotGoogle Android RAG SDK hiện chỉ đạt ~30% độ chính xác trên tập dữ liệu Lihua World, thấp hơn nhiều so với VecML (~75-85%). SDK này có thể chưa được tối ưu hóa, nhưng vẫn là lựa chọn đáng thử cho dev Android/iOS. #RAG #AndroidSDK #AI #GoogleAI #VecML #ỨngDụngDiĐộng
https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/1nk4z97/google_android_rag_sdk_quick_comparison_study/
Android 16 is here.
https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/06/android-16-is-here.html
The Fourth Beta of Android 16 | by Matthew McCullough.
https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/04/the-fourth-beta-of-android-16.html
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
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. https://gitlab.com/fdroid/fdroidserver/-/issues/1253
1/2
apksigner v33.0.x falsely verifies invalid APK which leads to wrong cert extracted for AllowedAPKSigningKeys (#1253) · Issues · F-Droid / fdroidserver · GitLab
With a specific configuration of fdroidserver and a specifically crafted APK, it is possible to bypass AllowedAPKSigningKeys. I could install the poc-v6.apk in an SDK-34...
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?
The Second Developer Preview of Android 16.
https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2024/12/second-developer-preview-android16.html
#android #mobiledev #appdev #androidsdk
BillieThis 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 !
https://codeberg.org/Starfish/SDK-Rebuilds
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!
