Package Details: android-studio 2024.2.1.12-1

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/android-studio.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: android-studio
Description: The official Android IDE (Stable branch)
Upstream URL: https://developer.android.com/
Keywords: android
Licenses: Apache
Submitter: TamCore
Maintainer: kordianbruck (SailReal)
Last Packager: SailReal
Votes: 1081
Popularity: 7.14
First Submitted: 2013-05-15 19:45 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2024-12-02 21:46 (UTC)

Pinned Comments

C0rn3j commented on 2024-10-26 17:04 (UTC)

2024.2 added a Wayland backend, not enabled by default. Works fine for me so far.

https://blog.jetbrains.com/platform/2024/07/wayland-support-preview-in-2024-2/

Latest Comments

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 Next › Last »

sjakub commented on 2013-06-01 18:08 (UTC)

I agree, a symlink in /usr/bin would be much cleaner :) This is exactly how google-chrome package does that.

<deleted-account> commented on 2013-05-31 18:19 (UTC)

imho it would make more sense to just symlink /usr/bin/android-studio to the studio.sh script. This wouldn't clutter PATH and there is no other useful binary in the /opt/android-studio/bin directory anyway. Also /etc/profile.d/* isn't necessarily sourced on all systems (it isn't on mine with a systemd user session). Other than that, good work on the package, works fine. :)

egore911 commented on 2013-05-31 08:45 (UTC)

Android Studio 0.1.2 was released https://plus.google.com/108967384991768947849/posts/YVYhhB7rHPm I couldn't find a download URL yet.

sjakub commented on 2013-05-30 07:37 (UTC)

@audrius: Package has to be updated whenever they create a new build. They delete old files, and if it wasn't updated it simply would not work. Several packages for Google stuff suffer from the same issue - sources are getting updated and the old ones are removed. There is no guarantee that they won't update the file without bumping the build number, but at least it's less likely then the new build number with the same official version. What is so messy about using the actual build number? The pkgrel should be used for versioning the package itself, not for representing different build numbers.

audrius commented on 2013-05-29 09:23 (UTC)

Official version is 0.1.1 and build number is 130.687321 . You can see version on welcome screen bottom. I even don't understand why such considerations are happening. Package should be updated when Google releases new version. Not when they assemble new build :)

xgdgsc commented on 2013-05-29 03:49 (UTC)

I agree with 0.1.1, if the binary is updated without bumping official version, just update the pkgrel. I think using the actual build number is a mess.

sjakub commented on 2013-05-28 20:20 (UTC)

The problem with "official" versioning is that Google may choose to update the binary and build number without bumping the official version. I think that the actual build number is safer.

saik0 commented on 2013-05-28 19:51 (UTC)

I agree package version should be like upstream version number (0.1.1)

sjakub commented on 2013-05-28 19:25 (UTC)

I think the actual build number (130.687321 for the current one) makes most sense... And if not, it should probably follow their official versioning (so 0.1.1 instead of 0.2).

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 Next › Last »