News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Review: Copperhead OS by cpeterso on Friday December 29, 2017 @02:49PM (#16031530)
What functionality is AOSP missing that is necessary to pass Android certification?
Re:Review: Copperhead OS by gsnedders on Friday December 29, 2017 @04:14PM (#16032031)
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.
Re:Review: Copperhead OS by gsnedders on Friday December 29, 2017 @04:56PM (#16032278)
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.