!UUYziobKGGxpovWyAN:nixos.org

Robotnix

224 Members
Build Android (AOSP) using Nix | https://github.com/nix-community/robotnix68 Servers

Load older messages


SenderMessageTime
8 Nov 2025
@cyclopentane:aidoskyneen.eupentane ⭔ also, I'm a bit confused. shouldn't sign_target_files_apks have complained about the missing gmscompat_lib key (see https://github.com/GrapheneOS/script/blob/16/generate-keys#L16?) 22:27:02
@cyclopentane:aidoskyneen.eupentane ⭔ * also, I'm a bit confused. shouldn't sign_target_files_apks have complained about the missing gmscompat_lib key (see https://github.com/GrapheneOS/script/blob/16/generate-keys#L16)? 22:27:05
@cyclopentane:aidoskyneen.eupentane ⭔ * also, I'm a bit confused. shouldn't sign_target_files_apks have complained about the missing gmscompat_lib key in your case (see https://github.com/GrapheneOS/script/blob/16/generate-keys#L16)? 22:27:13
9 Nov 2025
@puffnfresh:chat.home.brianmckenna.orgpuffnfresh

Error getting public key: b'Could not open file or uri for loading private key of public key from packages/modules/Virtualization/build/apex/com.android.virt.pem: No such file or directory\n'

04:41:44
@puffnfresh:chat.home.brianmckenna.orgpuffnfreshat the time, I hadn't specified that as an extra-apk, and specifying it solved the problem - so I think it's opposite to what you're saying04:42:20
@puffnfresh:chat.home.brianmckenna.orgpuffnfreshI actually generated my keys from the official scripts, so I do have that07:22:11
@puffnfresh:chat.home.brianmckenna.orgpuffnfreshand that's why the PR includes support for 4096 keys - that's what I'm using07:22:28
@puffnfresh:chat.home.brianmckenna.orgpuffnfreshI haven't tested Robotnix's key generation since my first attempt at signing, so gmscompat_lib being missing would probably be a problem07:23:25
@cyclopentane:aidoskyneen.eupentane ⭔Okay it seems like we're talking about two different things09:53:58
@cyclopentane:aidoskyneen.eupentane ⭔ this error message refers to the payload private key of the APEX in question 09:57:12
@cyclopentane:aidoskyneen.eupentane ⭔ the test-keys variant of that payload private key is present in the GrapheneOS source tree (see https://github.com/GrapheneOS/platform_packages_modules_Virtualization/tree/16/build/apex), but not in the otaTools derivation which releaseScript cds into 09:59:45
@cyclopentane:aidoskyneen.eupentane ⭔ okay, scratch that. so I investigated this, and it seems like the otatools AOSP build target (i.e. otatools.zip in the config.build.android version) erroneously doesn't include the APEX payload test keys 10:05:23
@cyclopentane:aidoskyneen.eupentane ⭔so that was the reason for why you were getting these error messages10:05:33
@cyclopentane:aidoskyneen.eupentane ⭔ I don't see rn though why there should be a guarantee that this happens consistently (for instance, looking into the otaTools derivation, the APEX container test keys are there, and likewise for the normal APK signing keys) 10:06:47
@cyclopentane:aidoskyneen.eupentane ⭔ if you're interested - I'm currently experimenting with patching sign_target_files_apks to throw error messages if one of the test keys hasn't been replaced. Don't think we should do that in production though, I'd probably write a small validation program in Rust that takes META/apkcerts.txt and META/apexkeys.txt, and the signTargetFilesArgs from target_files.zip as an option to check whether the args exhaustively cover all the keys 10:09:06
@cyclopentane:aidoskyneen.eupentane ⭔ FWIW here's my current patch for https://github.com/GrapheneOS/platform_build: 10:10:03
@cyclopentane:aidoskyneen.eupentane ⭔Download debug.patch10:10:36
@cyclopentane:aidoskyneen.eupentane ⭔ * I don't see rn though why there should be a guarantee that this happens consistently (for instance, looking into the otaTools derivation, the APEX *container* test keys *are* there, and likewise for the normal APK signing keys) 10:11:17
@cyclopentane:aidoskyneen.eupentane ⭔ Oh and we should also write a better abstraction for the non-standard keys, it kinda pisses me off that we need to specify them separately in keysToGenerate and in keyMappings in modules/signing.nix 10:22:18
@cyclopentane:aidoskyneen.eupentane ⭔https://github.com/nix-community/robotnix/commit/75cf4f78b6fbb3a402a22b848ec967880ddf56f6 https://github.com/nix-community/robotnix/commit/fc99ff973428ef1c2e2bff427ce403d01a5f2b1922:01:43
@puffnfresh:chat.home.brianmckenna.orgpuffnfreshcompiling 2025-11-09 now and will test signing using that branch22:17:11
@cyclopentane:aidoskyneen.eupentane ⭔(already tested 2025-11-09 on a tegu with the official signing script btw, I'll merge as soon as upstream pushed 2025110800 to stable)22:18:03
@cyclopentane:aidoskyneen.eupentane ⭔can you save the output of the signing script and post it here?22:18:48
10 Nov 2025
@puffnfresh:chat.home.brianmckenna.orgpuffnfreshI used the upstream GrapheneOS generation scripts, which use the same keys for everything02:19:24
@puffnfresh:chat.home.brianmckenna.orgpuffnfreshso I don't have things like com.android.tzdata.pem02:19:52
@puffnfresh:chat.home.brianmckenna.orgpuffnfreshso I used the Robotnix generation scripts, generated those, then copied keys/shiba from my keys into the directory02:21:15
@puffnfresh:chat.home.brianmckenna.orgpuffnfreshso it's a bit of a mess, I guess - but the scripts run fine after doing that02:21:28

There are no newer messages yet.


Back to Room ListRoom Version: 6