From reading a little about it, I’m not sure why not. Everything besides the engine/splash stack would go in the common bundle (not the right name) and then each engine would have its own slice. The store would combine the two pieces into the apk for delivery. We would still need to produce the apk for testing though (it looks like there is a way to pull an apk out of the bundle too).
How to do this is beyond me though.... Thanks, Brian On Jun 14, 2019, 10:55 PM -0400, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode <use-livecode@lists.runrev.com>, wrote: > This is good to know. But what I'd really like to see is the app bundle > that the Play Store expects. I wonder if that's possible. > > -- > Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com > HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com > On June 14, 2019 9:24:24 PM Sannyasin Brahmanathaswami via use-livecode > <use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > > > Got it, it works... > > > > Jerry __ thanks for the chart! > > > > "Boy!" this needs to be documented somewhere... > > > > BR > > > > ?Jerry wrote > > So like this for your sequence if your highest used VC is 15 then: > > > > Build VC > > arm v7a 16 ---->next time --->20---->next time--->24 > > arm64 17---->next time--->21--->next time--->25 > > X86 18--->next time--->22--->next time--->26 > > x86-64 19--->next time--->23--->next time--->27 > > > > > > and so on, you see the 64 builds need to be higher vc then the 32bits > > > > > > Mark (W) wrote: > > > > > I wonder if the reason this didn't work is because you have the > > > version code > > > for armv7 > that for arm64... > > > > > > I suspect the play store will choose the highest version coded APK > > > that will > > > run on the target device. As ARMv7 APKs will run on devices which can > > > run ARM64, > > > it will choose the ARMv7 in preference (as it is version code 14, > > > which is greater > > > than 7) and thus 'completely shadow' the ARM64 APK. > > > > > > Upshot: probably best to make sure ARM64 APKs have higher version code > > > than > > > ARM7 ones (the same is true of x86-64 and x86 - but in that case > > > you've already > > > got version-code-of(x86-64) > version-code-of(x86) which is why you > > > aren't getting > > > a shadowed error for those) > > > > > > Warmest Regards, > > > > > > Mark. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > use-livecode mailing list > > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com > > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your > > subscription preferences: > > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode > > > > _______________________________________________ > > use-livecode mailing list > > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com > > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your > > subscription preferences: > > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode > > > > > _______________________________________________ > use-livecode mailing list > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription > preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
