Make apks be built in a consistent way

content/content_shell.gypi

 # Copyright (c) 2012 The Chromium Authors. All rights reserved.
 # Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style license that can be
 # found in the LICENSE file.
 
 {
   'variables': {
     'content_shell_product_name': 'Content Shell',
   },
   'targets': [
     {
@@ skipping 583 matching lines @@
         },
         {
           'target_name': 'content_shell_apk',
           'type': 'none',
           'dependencies': [
             'content_java',
             '../base/base.gyp:base_java',
             '../media/media.gyp:media_java',
             '../net/net.gyp:net_java',
           ],
+          'variables': {
+            'package_name': 'content_shell',
+            'apk_name': 'ContentShell',
+            'java_in_dir': 'shell/android/java',
+            'resource_dir': 'shell/android/res',

[Ted C, 2012/09/07 20:21:10]

hmm...I see resource_dir is I guess different.  Sadly I think that is a bug.  I
believe the res directory should live at the same level at the java source
dir...i.e.

java_in_dir: shell/android/java/src
resource_dir: shell/android/java/res

If we enforce this paradigm, we could just specify shell/android/java and look
for src/ and res/ under it.

+            'native_libs_paths': ['<(PRODUCT_DIR)/content_shell/libs/<(android_app_abi)/libcontent_shell_content_view.so'],
+            'additional_input_paths': ['<(PRODUCT_DIR)/content_shell/assets/content_shell.pak'],
+          },
           'actions': [
             {
               'action_name': 'copy_and_strip_so',
               'inputs': ['<(SHARED_LIB_DIR)/libcontent_shell_content_view.so'],
               'outputs': ['<(PRODUCT_DIR)/content_shell/libs/<(android_app_abi)/libcontent_shell_content_view.so'],
               'action': [
                 '<(android_strip)',
                 '--strip-unneeded',  # All symbols not needed for relocation.
                 '<@(_inputs)',
                 '-o',
                 '<@(_outputs)',
               ],
             },
-            {
-              'action_name': 'content_shell_apk',
-              'inputs': [
-                'shell/android/java/content_shell_apk.xml',
-                'shell/android/java/AndroidManifest.xml',
-                '../build/android/ant/common.xml',
-                '../build/android/ant/sdk-targets.xml',
-                '<!@(find shell/android/java -name "*.java")',
-                '<!@(find shell/android/res -name "*")',
-                '>@(input_jars_paths)',
-                '<(PRODUCT_DIR)/content_shell/assets/content_shell.pak',
-                '<(PRODUCT_DIR)/content_shell/libs/<(android_app_abi)/libcontent_shell_content_view.so',
-              ],
-              'outputs': [
-                # Awkwardly, we build a Debug APK even when gyp is in
-                # Release mode.  I don't think it matters (e.g. we're
-                # probably happy to not codesign) but naming should be
-                # fixed.
-                '<(PRODUCT_DIR)/content_shell/ContentShell-debug.apk',
-              ],
-              'action': [
-                # Pass the build type to ant. Currently it only assumes
-                # debug mode in java. Release mode will break the current
-                # workflow.
-                'ant',
-                '-DPRODUCT_DIR=<(ant_build_out)',
-                '-DAPP_ABI=<(android_app_abi)',
-                '-DANDROID_SDK=<(android_sdk)',
-                '-DANDROID_SDK_ROOT=<(android_sdk_root)',
-                '-DANDROID_SDK_TOOLS=<(android_sdk_tools)',
-                '-DANDROID_SDK_VERSION=<(android_sdk_version)',
-                '-DANDROID_GDBSERVER=<(android_gdbserver)',
-                '-DCONFIGURATION_NAME=<(CONFIGURATION_NAME)',
-                '-DINPUT_JARS_PATHS=>(input_jars_paths)',
-                '-buildfile',
-                'shell/android/java/content_shell_apk.xml',
-              ],
-            }
           ],
+          'includes': [ '../build/java_apk.gypi' ],
         },
       ],
     }],  # OS=="android"
   ]
 }