From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32D871FF185 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2025 11:51:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 269C81ECA9; Mon, 7 Jul 2025 11:52:04 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2025 11:51:29 +0200 Message-Id: From: "Shan Shaji" To: "Proxmox VE development discussion" , "Thomas Lamprecht" , "Tim Marx" , "Dominik Csapak" X-Mailer: aerc 0.14.0 References: <20250702091056.60732-1-s.shaji@proxmox.com> <20499aba-f114-4a55-92bd-e43eca44cab7@proxmox.com> <9e82aa80-6e7e-406e-9ea0-92ec3dc7c79e@proxmox.com> <21cdddbf-5bfa-4b3b-885c-79afbe54603c@proxmox.com> <1893456957.1437.1751555908572@webmail.proxmox.com> <4ad500da-d5bc-40d8-9d76-d6b71d4b7a5d@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.037 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment KAM_NUMSUBJECT 0.5 Subject ends in numbers excluding current years SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record URIBL_SBL_A 0.1 Contains URL's A record listed in the Spamhaus SBL blocklist [142.250.185.174] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH pve_flutter_frontend v1] chore: update `compileSdkVersion` to 35 and `targetSdkVersion` to 36 X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" Created a new patch [0] by updating the compileSdkVersion to 36. Now both the `compileSdkVersion` and `targetSdkVersion` are 36. - [0] https://lore.proxmox.com/pve-devel/20250707094800.68832-1-s.shaji@proxmox.com/T/#u On Fri Jul 4, 2025 at 1:15 PM CEST, Shan Shaji wrote: > There is no new version available. We are already using the new version. > Did a little more research and may be we don't need to upgrade the > plugin. When i checked running the app on Android 16 (Emulator - > mocking the finger print feature from settings) by upgrading the > `targetSdkVersion` and `compileSdkVersion` to 36 it worked fine. > > I was able to compile build and run the app successfully, > didn't got any compilation or depraction warnings. likely because the > plugin doesn't rely on any APIs that were deprecated or removed in > API level 36 but were still present in 35. Since the app is compiled > with API level 36, It includes APIs from previousl levels, including > 35. Given that most changes in newer APIs are additive [0], > I think we can continue using the API level 35 in the plugin. > > [0] - https://developer.android.com/guide/topics/manifest/uses-sdk-element#fc > > > On Fri Jul 4, 2025 at 10:53 AM CEST, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > > Am 03.07.25 um 17:18 schrieb Tim Marx: > > > I think you are misinterpreting that Thomas, I meant what I said before. > > > > > > The post Dominik referenced is right here, it definitely says that you should not have a higher targetSdkVersion, that is due the the Gradle build process and how they determine runtime compatibility for release builds and debug builds. > > > https://medium.com/androiddevelopers/picking-your-compilesdkversion-minsdkversion-targetsdkversion-a098a0341ebd > > > > > > In the comments it is iterated again: > > > https://medium.com/@ianhlake/libraries-that-you-are-including-as-aars-or-remote-dependencies-from-maven-repositories-are-ca6cd7dd96ec > > > > > > It does not make sense to me to have a higher target, you can't test that if you compile against a lower SDK. > > > > > > Yeah, I rechecked I was indeed misinterpreting this and found some confirmation > > bias on (confused) answers online like stack overflow, thanks to you and > > Dominik for clearing this up! > > > > One thing that annoys me a bit is though that per the Link from Shan it > > really states very explicitly in the official docs: > > > > > The value of `targetSdk` must be less than or equal to that of `compileSdk`. > > > > So breaking this should really result in a build error... > > > > But anyway, @Shan, let's upgrade biometrics storage instead, maybe there's a new > > version already, or alternatively ugprade it ourselves (and also sent that patch > > upstream). FWIW, we had already a downstream version using a path dependency of > > that library in the past for an important bug fix, so doing this would be the > > first time. > > > > _______________________________________________ > pve-devel mailing list > pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com > https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel