Understanding the quality and evolution of Android app build systems
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Build systems are used to transform static source code into executable software. They play a crucial role in modern software development and maintenance. As such, much research effort has been invested in understanding the quality and evolution of build systems, including Apache ANT, Apache Maven, and Make‐based ones. However, the quality and evolution of build systems for mobile apps, such as on the Android platform, have not as yet been investigated in detail. Mobile app development, and the Android development context in particular, impose unique constrains, such as different device conditions and capabilities. It presents unique challenges, such as frequently upgraded Android frameworks, which those who implement and maintain build systems must tackle. In this paper, we present an exploratory empirical study of the build systems of 5222 Android projects to better understand their quality and evolution. We (a) study the build technology choices that Android developers make (Gradle being recommended and the most popular choice), (b) explore the sustainability of the official Gradle build system (parts of build files are updated more frequent that others and the update of the special Gradle plugin would induce unrecommended configurations), and (c) analyze the quality of Gradle scripts for Android apps—more than a half of the open‐source Android apps cannot be successfully built due to five common root causes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it