When this is enabled we ensure that files from the vendor directory
get installed to /system/vendor/* instead of elsewhere in /system/*.
This changes the PRODUCT_RESTRICT_VENDOR_FILES variable
to accept "owner", "path", "owner path", or "all".
"true" will still only enforce vendor file owner restrictions.
Change-Id: I4598130a590ad56976e011f4cb2a9f5f227d5732
So we can have the same set of module names in different host arch
/ toolchain version combinations.
Change-Id: Iec66584bf3de92aedd71a59f9dbe74b6ed025b2e
With this change, if a module name is associated with multiple modules,
you can specify multiple install paths in
PRODUCT_FACTORY_RAMDISK_MODULES.
For example, if we have 2 modules named "foo", one is Java library and
the other is executable, then you can write:
PRODUCT_FACTORY_RAMDISK_MODULES += \
foo:system/bin/foo:system/framework/foo.jar
Or:
PRODUCT_FACTORY_RAMDISK_MODULES += \
foo:system/bin/foo \
foo:system/framework/foo.jar
The build system will choose the correct built files based on the
install paths.
Change-Id: I6efc72e8abd1e81710ada16731b6792989aefd85
OTOH, should we just allow the expression to be >= 3.81
for all platforms? For cygwin it's a specific case since
we don't build the platform, only a handful set of tools
and it works just fine with a newer make 3.82.
Change-Id: Icff0d0e13bce79f7164007985f14db56e9049552
Bug: 5769921
With this change, to build factory_ramdisk.img, set
PRODUCT_FACTORY_RAMDISK_MODULES in your product config.
PRODUCT_FACTORY_RAMDISK_MODULES consists of
"<module_name>:<install_path>" pairs.
<install_path> is relative to the root of the factory ramdisk output.
For example:
PRODUCT_FACTORY_RAMDISK_MODULES := \
toolbox:bin/toolbox adbd:sbin/adbd adb:bin/adb
On the other hand you can use PRODUCT_COPY_FILES to copy prebuilt files
to the factory ramdisk.
Or you can define modules that are specific for the factory ramdisk
(with LOCAL_MODULE_PATH pointing to TARGET_FACTORY_RAMDISK_OUT) and add
the module names to PRODUCT_PACKAGES.
Change-Id: I80ff72606415cd74fe6f3bc93020a05d84e45b70
Bug: 5448433
Instead of deferring the removal to building the app.
In that case any R/Manifest classes in any static Java libraries will be
deleted, no matter if they are generated from Android resource, or just
source R.java/Manifest.java in the source tree by accident.
Change-Id: I656f45e3cbc3796c5d4832363231480b3f1dc5b8
Unfortunately there is R.java checked in the source tree that gets built
into static library.
So we have to find a way to delete classes from R.java generated by the
build system on the fly.
Change-Id: I2d82d28234cecbf6dd5b02b2dd4f7dbd47e3b626
Bug: 5714516
The rationale behind this change:
- the library is compiled into a jar file, but its R class is generated
making the constant not constant (static, not final static) (aapt
option --non-constant-id). Also the jar file does not contain the R
class.
- this allows the integer value to not be inlined in the compiled
class files. Note that this prevents using switch statements.
- the main project use this jar file as a normal static library: it will
add all the class files except the R.class.
- the main project uses the library res folder as a resource
folder with lower priority than the main project (basically the
main project is an overlay. This is accomplished using aapt's
--auto-add-overlay to handle resources only in the main project
(which the normal overlay mechanism doesn't allow).
- the main project creates R classes in the main project's
package but also in the library's package. This is done with
aapt's --extra-packages which accept as many packages as
needed, separated by a :.
- manifest merging is not done yet, so
activities/services/permissions/etc... have to be manually declared in
the main app.
To use a static library with Android resource in your app,
1. Add the library's resource dir to your app as an overlay:
LOCAL_RESOURCE_DIR := <app_resource_dir> <static_library_resource_dirs>
2. Set the proper aapt flags:
LOCAL_AAPT_FLAGS := <apps_own_flags> --auto-add-overlay \
--extra-packages <lib1_package_name>:<lib2_package_name>:...
Change-Id: Ifb4d2300b952ea4aaee74da1bb0c6c72ea0698a3
This is the result of a recent conversation around the x86 ABI
and its relationship with how we build platform images. Briefly:
- We want to use feature-based macros like ARCH_X86_HAVE_$FEATURE
instead of relying on explicit compiler macros like -DUSE_$FEATURE
- We want to allow for other x86-based arch variants, e.g. if
someone wants to build Android for a CPU that doesn't support
the NDK x86 ABI. However, we need to ensure these are not
tagged compatible by mistake (see check at the end of TARGET_linux-x86.mk)
- There are several flags which use is dubious now that we have
a dedicated toolchain to build all the x86 stuff. Comment them
as 'to be considered for removal'. We'll do the proper checks
later.
Change-Id: I7768d7c34d73e274cbf4c09ae831b55280d6bb58
Bug 4970300
Adds two new variables, CTS_TEST_CASES and CTS_TEST_XMLS, to be read
from CtsTestCaseList.mk. The CTS_TEST_CASES variable can be used to
copy any sort of file to the repository/testcases CTS directory.
The CTS_TEST_XMLS variable can be used to inject test package xmls
from any source rather than relying upon the monolithic and
mostly serial buildCts.py script.
The existing CTS_CORE_CASE_LIST is coded to only support APKs, so
it could not be retrofitted to support native tests. However, the
two new variables can do even more than CTS_CORE_CASE_LIST due to
their generality. In the future, the idea is move away from
CTS_CORE_CASE_LIST and also generate XMLs using separate tools
rather than just buildCts.py.
Change-Id: Ib52722861c37e0f4d511f9041928395bcaba5dea
Bug: 5692177
If you set "PRODUCT_RESTRICT_VENDOR_FILES := true" in a product
configuration, this changes restricts that:
- No overlays in the vendor tree.
- No PRODUCT_COPY_FILES coming from the vendor tree.
- Any referenced package with Android.mk in the vendor tree must have
LOCAL_MODULE_OWNER set to a value that's compared against a whitelist
stored in the core build system.
Change-Id: I172b84c7c853e9a04bf9879ea8dec90bd5054230
