zlacker

>>kotaKa+(OP)
Even aside from the privacy implications (which aren't trivial themselves,)

Doesn't this make it prohibitively difficult to do local builds of open source projects? It's been a long time since I've done this, but my recollection was that the process to do this was essentially you would build someone else's (the project's) package/namespace up through signing, but sign it locally with your own dev keys. A glance at the docs they've shared makes it sound like the package name essentially gets bound to an identity and you then can't sign it with another key. Am a I misremembering and/or has something changed in this process? Am I missing something?

>>abeyer+6G
A repo is just files in a directory, so the namespace can be changed, but the whole thing stinks. Having to setup Android signing keys and needing to provide ID is not fun. It means you won't easily be able to run builds on Google certified Android devices that aren't from "approved" people.

>>luke-s+aI
That's where the "prohibitively difficult" part comes in... surely they don't expect every developer on every open source app in the world to have their own app registration/package name for the same app, do they? Feels like an N * M problem, if so.

>>abeyer+bJ
Get rid of those pesky open source guys, keep the merchants who want $$$ and can pay $ to Google.