3 ms·
> It's telling that the author isn't actually saying why they're rejecting him Have you ever tried to publish apps on the play store? They often don't give you
by ranger_danger 2y ago
> It's telling that the author isn't actually saying why they're rejecting him
Have you ever tried to publish apps on the play store? They often don't give you a reason that it fails, you're just left to keep trying different things randomly until it works, and then later fails again when you changed nothing... there is a documented history of this happening to many projects.
I know several FOSS projects that do not have the knowledge/time/desire to implement SAF support, and for some projects it doesn't make much sense or might be invasive to the user experience, and their play store versions have since been stuck at old versions and they just moved on to F-Droid and other appstores.
- pjmlp 2y agoAndroid is not GNU/Linux, and the use of Linux kernel could be easily replaced by something else POSIX like. Many of those FOSS projects keep thinking Android is Linux, and then act surprised when it is not.
- izacus 2y agoYes, I've been doing this for a long time now and I've also helped convert several apps to the new SAF framework when the restrictions came out. I've also helped many companies and people with these kind of issues and in most cases it's been self-inflicted. The policy there was always very clear - you need to use SAF unless you're building something that absolutely function with it (these are pretty much exclusively file explorers). Syncthing can use SAF, the author just refuses to according to their bugs. This counts as "self-inflicted" and I'm not sure why they think they can complain their way out of it.