Re:Review: Copperhead OS
by gsnedders on Friday December 29, 2017 @02:43PM
(#16031478)
Except AOSP doesn't even pass the Android certification [edit: should be compatibility, not certification] test suite, so stage one of building non-Google Android is making AOSP actually work as it should. :(
[ Parent
| on HN ]
What functionality is AOSP missing that is necessary to pass Android certification?
See, e.g., https://twitter.com/CopperheadOS/status/907720250501844994
It's mostly not functionality missing to pass the CTS, but just broken untested AOSP-only code (that is replaced by Google closed source code in Google builds).
Re:Review: Copperhead OS
by lern_too_spel on Friday December 29, 2017 @04:51PM
(#16032259)
These only fail because there is extra unused noop functionality in AOSP that CTS complains about (a bug in AOSP), not because Google services are required to pass CTS.
The point was that AOSP isn't a perfect base, because the Android team obviously don't care enough to actually test it, not that Google services are required.
Re:Review: Copperhead OS
by lern_too_spel on Friday December 29, 2017 @05:57PM
(#16032592)
That makes your first comment completely irrelevant with respect to its parent. It's also a stretch to say that you need to do anything to make AOSP work as it should simply because it contains extra noop APIs.