I'm seeing this with android:protectionLevel="normal" too. Since Android doesn't grant permissions that had not been declared yet, this forces the user to install apps declaring / using the permission in a certain order.
This is a pain for the user, so the developer of one app that works with mine (and needs a permission declared there) added an identical permission declaration stanza in his app too. A clever hack, on Android prior to 5.0, it lets the user install mine and his apps in either order. Since Android 5.0, only one app can be installed at a time -- trying to install the other one fails with Play error code 505. I don't work for Google, so can only post a link to the bug tracker -- https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=79375 -- and maybe recommend trying "signature" protection level, since both apps are yours and (as I understand) you hadn't released the new one yet, so you can still make that change. -- K On Friday, February 20, 2015 at 11:33:25 AM UTC+3, marten wrote: > > Hi Marina, > > we're using android:protectionLevel="dangerous" because that's what we > think is suitable for personal data like tasks. Also, it's what the > CalendarProvider uses for the permissions to read and write calendars. > > At present the major issue is that some users get this error even though > they install the properly signed version from Google Play. > > The root of all this is that there is no way to grant a permission that > hasn't been granted at installation time. And Google is making it worse > instead of fixing it. At present the only solution seems to be to use no > permissions at all and that's certainly not what this is intended for. > > If there is someone from Google in this Forum: How is this intended to > work? > > thanks > > Marten > > Am Donnerstag, 19. Februar 2015 19:21:40 UTC+1 schrieb Marina Cuello: >> >> Hi! >> I'm not sure how to help, because've only met this problem when there >> are several users set on a device. >> >> If I install my app directly from Eclipse with my debug certificates, >> then uninstall the app and try to install a production copy, made with >> the release certificate, I've got the same error message >> INSTALL_FAILED_DUPLICATE_PERMISSION. >> >> Until I uninstall the app in every user by hand, I can't install the >> new one. At least in your case the error message makes sense :) >> >> When I was trying to understand that error message, I've read that it >> affected permissions with android:protectionLevel declared as >> "signature". Are you using that? Can you change it to "normal" without >> affecting your business model? >> >> >> Marina >> >> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Marten Gajda <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > we've some problems with Android 5. There seems to be a new policy that >> > requires two apps that define the same permissions to be signed by the >> same >> > key. Otherwise you can't install the app getting the error >> > INSTALL_FAILED_DUPLICATE_PERMISSION. >> > This is very annoying and I'd like to know that the suggested >> > solution/workaround to this is. >> > >> > We have an Open Source task app that provides access to the tasks via a >> > ContentProvider. The concept pretty much equals the CalendarProvider. >> We >> > also have a (not yet Open Source) sync app that can sync to this task >> app >> > (or its ContentProvider). >> > The problem is that (in contrast to the CalendarProvider) our users >> usually >> > install the sync app first. That means the permissions of the task app >> are >> > not known when the sync app is installed. So they are not granted >> > automatically when the task app is installed afterwards. >> > >> > Until Android 5 the solution was to define the same permissions in the >> sync >> > app. But that doesn't work any more in some cases. If the user compiles >> the >> > task app himself he can not use our sync app at the same time, because >> they >> > are not signed by the same key. >> > >> > How can we achieve that we protect access to the task ContentProvider >> by >> > permissions still allowing them to use a self compiled version? >> > >> > Even if both apps are signed by the same key it doesn't seem to work in >> some >> > cases (does Android 5 also require both apps to be from the same >> source?) >> > >> > A similar issue exists when another developer tries to build a sync app >> that >> > can sync to our task app. He can not add the same permissions, because >> he >> > can't use the same signing key. But if he can't add the same permission >> > definition his app won't get the permission if it's installed before >> the >> > task app is installed. >> > >> > What's the solution of this mess? >> > >> > thanks >> > >> > Marten >> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
