URGENT!!!!! Can't update apps in android market!!!

by Jean-Baptiste Queru » Fri, 24 Apr 2009 21:25:15 GMT

Sponsored Links
 API levels are integers (they notion of "API level" was very
unfortunately badly named in the manifest).

1.0 implemented API level 1, 1.1 implemented API level 2, and the same
relationship exists between 1.5 and API level 3.


Jean-Baptiste M. "JBQ" Queru
Android Engineer, Google.

Questions sent directly to me that have no reason for being private
will likely get ignored or forwarded to a public forum with no further


URGENT!!!!! Can't update apps in android market!!!

by Josh Dobbs » Sat, 25 Apr 2009 14:35:19 GMT

  just did it with no problem
I used

<uses-*sdk* android:minSdkVersion="1" />
put it right after the openin manifest tag.

On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 6:40 PM, s...@zooropa.com <s...@zooropa.com> wrote:


Sponsored Links

URGENT!!!!! Can't update apps in android market!!!

by Robert Slama » Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:33:42 GMT

 I was have that same problem and I resolved it with
<uses-sdk minSdkVersion="2" /> ... its located as first element in manifest


2009/4/24 Yan Shi <shiyansu...@gmail.com>:


URGENT!!!!! Can't update apps in android market!!!

by Raphael » Wed, 29 Apr 2009 01:27:16 GMT

 ctually the element order makes a difference.
It's a bug in the current Market parser which is going to be fixed real soon.


On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 6:54 AM, jsdf <jasons...@gmail.com> wrote:


Other Threads

1. Changin view on Activity

Hi there,

I have 1 activity class as entry point to application. There have 2
View (extends from SurfaceView) and I have problem with showing second
First view is showed correctly but when I call
setContentView(secondView) I getting exception

W/System.err( 1241): java.lang.RuntimeException: Can't create handler
inside thread that has not called Looper.prepare()

Anyone can help me how I can change view on activity ?

many thx



2. Self-signing and application security scenari

Hello all,

I'm trying to wrap my heads around this, so forgive me if I'm
rehashing conversations had elsewhere. This is based on what I've read
in this thread. Let me pose a hypothetical scenario:

Say I'm a user of average technological savvy -- I know that the
padlock icon on my pc browser means things are safe, I don't like
connecting to unknown WiFi points because I've heard there's snooping
going on, but I'm not a computer weenie -- I'm just an average user.
Say I also like cute widgets.

Say someobody writes four applications that use protected APIs, sells
them as a package called MyCuteWidgetsSuite or individually. The apps
are as follows:

MyRingerPhoneBook requires access to the phonebook on the device so
that I can attach a nice little sound to each contact when I scroll
over. It specifies READ_CONTACTS in the Manifest as a required
permission. I allow it to run because while I know it reads my
contacts, it says nothing about sending things over network -- so I
think my contact data is safe.

MyPhoneCallFireworks is a little app that shows a cute animation
whenever I make a phone call. It specifies PROCESS_OUTGOING_CALLS  in
the Manifest as a required permission. I allow it to run because well,
it makes sense to do so and there is nothing about sending things over
the network.

MySparkleSMS is a little app that shows a cute little sparkly rainbow
whenever I get an SMS from a friend, and that puts invisible
characters in outgoing SMS messages so that other friends with
MySparkleSMS will get my sparkly rainbow when I send them a message.
It specifies RECEIVE_SMS and SEND_SMS. This makes sense to me because,
yes, it's an SMS application

MyPhoneCallWhenNear is a little app that automatically calls my
buddies when they're within two blocks of me. It specifies CALL_PHONE
and ACCESS_COARSE_LOCATION and INTERNET in the manifest. The whole
Internet thing kind of wigs me out a bit, but I already installed two
other apps in the suite months ago and they've been behaving very
nicely, plus it's not using GPS but just WiFi location... I guess I
can trust the app. Sure, I will allow it to run.

Each application has sharedUserId specified in the Manifest, and all
apps are signed under the same self signed certificate. According to
Android documentation (http://developer.android.com/guide/topics/
security/security.html), all these applications share privileges. They
are, in essence, one big application with a whole host of permissions.

Say MyCuteWidgetsSuite was written not by a lover of sparkly things
but by a shady character in East Evilonia, and that in 12 months,
after the apps have been on the top-10 downloads list in the
Marketplace and highly rated by lots of lovers of sparklies, the apps
will wake up and download all my call logs, contact information, a
record of my location movements and my full SMS message trails to a
server It will also be able to open up an internet connection to a
server, make outgoing phone calls without my knowing it (and listen to
my conversations), and send SMS messages silently, helping it become
part of a an SMS and phone dialer spam zombienet.

Is this a plausible scenario? Or is there something I'm missing about
self-signing and security between applications with the same cert/UID?
What in the Android Security Model prevents this kind of scenario?


3. Android application permission discussio

4. design Q: persisting activity state

5. surprise, No process called surfaceflinger listed by ps

6. When is a good time to require 1.5?

7. Anyone been asked by dev to change their rating for their app on market?