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

Please provide maintainable list of NDK codename-revision pairs #2042

Open
basilgello opened this issue Jul 12, 2024 · 3 comments
Open

Please provide maintainable list of NDK codename-revision pairs #2042

basilgello opened this issue Jul 12, 2024 · 3 comments

Comments

@basilgello
Copy link

In certain situations like F-Droid builds it is necessary to have a mapping of NDK codename (r26d) to revision (26.3.xxxxx), since sdkmanager from Android SDK does not know MDK codenames.

I made a quick one-liner to retrieve NDK revision from released tags in this repo:

wget \
  -qO- \
  -H "Accept: application/vnd.github+json" \
  -H "X-GitHub-Api-Version: 2022-11-28" \
  'https://api.github.com/repos/android/ndk/releases' |
  jq \
   -r \
   '.[] | select(.tag_name == "r27-beta1") | .body | match("ndkVersion \"(.*)\"").captures[0].string'

but tagged releases start from r26.

To provide single source of truth on this matter, it would be best to have releases tagged for older NDKs up to r11 but I am not sure if it possible to back-date Github releases so they dont become the 'latest' one. Another option is to have automatically generated JSON/YAML/TOML file with mappings like:

r26=26.0.11112

@DanAlbert What do you think?

@DanAlbert
Copy link
Member

You mean this? https://github.com/android/ndk/wiki (and https://github.com/android/ndk/wiki/Unsupported-Downloads for the unsupported releases)

I keep asking Studio to handle our version scheme. I think they agree, there's just no capacity for making it happen.

@basilgello
Copy link
Author

Yes, this one. With more sophisticated regexp-ing it may be done but I guess some automatic step generating the file is better

@DanAlbert
Copy link
Member

I guess I'm not really sure what you're asking me to do. The data is already published.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants