Package Details: android-emulator 36.6.11-1

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/android-emulator.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: android-emulator
Description: Google Android Emulator
Upstream URL: https://developer.android.com/studio/releases/emulator.html
Keywords: android development
Licenses: custom
Submitter: dreamingincode
Maintainer: dreamingincode
Last Packager: dreamingincode
Votes: 62
Popularity: 0.014705
First Submitted: 2017-04-19 07:06 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2026-06-14 02:29 (UTC)

Latest Comments

« First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 Next › Last »

dreamingincode commented on 2020-05-09 20:15 (UTC)

I personally didn't see those warnings, and if this is not related to AUR packaging you might want to ask it somewhere else.

Regarding "-bin", I didn't see any official guideline/requirement saying that packages not built from source code must have that suffix. (See https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_package_guidelines#Package_naming ), and currently none of all the Android SDK packages have that suffix. If people actually use Android SDK built from source, we might be able to move all the Android SDK packages into official repo. I'll be happy to rename this package for disambiguation in that case.

greyltc commented on 2020-05-09 14:58 (UTC) (edited on 2020-05-09 15:02 (UTC) by greyltc)

When I run a virtual device with the emulator, it makes a bunch of complaints about Vulkan, for example Emulator: VK_VERSION_1_1 check failed: vkCmdSetDeviceMask not found

Is this missing some configuration to work with Arch's MESA/vulkan libs or something?

Also, shouldn't this package be changed to have a -bin suffix? Either that or it should be compiled here it seams.

mynacol commented on 2019-10-27 12:29 (UTC)

The file is "generated" or "placed there" by sdk-manager. If I install a fresh android-sdk with the sdk-manager, every component/package gets a package.xml and I simply copied it.

A strange effect: every other package (platform, platform-tools, build-tools etc.) has also a package.xml similar to the one for android-emulator, but those packages get noticed by android-studio without the package.xml file. The android-emulator is the only one (I know of) that requires the package.xml file to be noticed by android-studio.

To support android-studio, we have to include a package.xml file and keep it updated - the simplest way would be to download android-emulator with sdk-manager to get the newest package.xml and by the way the link to the android-emulator package. Changes to the given dependencies in a newer package.xml could be reflected by fittng "depends" clauses in the PKGBUILD.

dreamingincode commented on 2019-10-26 17:52 (UTC)

I replied to your email but your email server responded "The certificate is not valid according to the STS policy".

The file seems to include version and dependencies of the package, so simply including it won't work when the package is updated. Do you know where the file is from/generated?

mynacol commented on 2019-10-26 12:41 (UTC)

I created a patch which includes the missing package.xml and mailed it to the maintainer. I hope he sees the email after noticing this comment.

s777n commented on 2019-10-13 08:50 (UTC)

For some reason ths package doesnt have package.xml inside them so after installing Android Studio doesn't see it.

archery commented on 2019-07-31 02:57 (UTC) (edited on 2019-07-31 02:57 (UTC) by archery)

Android Studio 3.4 does not find the emulator when you go to Tools > AVD manager.

It was working fine in Android Studio 3.3 - do you know why?

yodaembedding commented on 2019-05-26 01:54 (UTC)

I'm wondering the same thing as @Kppqju77. I ended up uninstalling this package and just using the Android Studio version.

Kppqju77 commented on 2019-05-15 23:07 (UTC)

How do I make android studio recognize the fact that there is an emulator installed? I don't have any issues with other packages in /opt/android-sdk/...

Vrakfall commented on 2018-11-10 22:28 (UTC)

@dreamingincode: I'm sorry. I checked that file as well: There's also a 28.0.+ node in there. Now I checked, the SDK manager still shows 27.3.10. I wonder what is the detail I missed.

« First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 Next › Last »