Removing the android READ_PHONE_STATE permission

I am integrating Tap for Tap alongside Chartboost however I am hitting incompatible permissions.

The Chartboost integration has a requirement that READ_PHONE_STATE is not set.

For Android games,  do not  enable the android.permission.READ_PHONE_STATE permission — it prevents your game from sending Android IDs to our system

According to the Tap for Tap documentation, the READ_PHONE_STATE permission is optional:

Note: We use READ_PHONE_STATE and ACCESS_WIFI_STATE to uniquely identify devices. You can choose to omit these permissions if you don’t want to use them.

However it looks like it is actually being included by default during the build process. 

Is it possible to stop the permission being added automatically and instead rely on the developer adding it to the build.settings file?

Bruce

Hey Bruce,

My name is Taylor Reynolds and I work for Tap for Tap as the developer advocate,

I am here to let you know I will inform our support team about this question. I wanted to ensure you knew that we are looking into it and that your question was not overlooked. With our new sdk3 launching very soon our focus has been turned to that primarily.

Thanks for your patience at this time,

Taylor Reynolds

Hi Bruce,

In the new SDK we require the READ_PHONE_STATE permission as such at this moment I cannot remove the permission.

Let me look into this issue a little more closely and see if there is a way that I can work around this.

Thanks,

Phil

Hey Bruce,

My name is Taylor Reynolds and I work for Tap for Tap as the developer advocate,

I am here to let you know I will inform our support team about this question. I wanted to ensure you knew that we are looking into it and that your question was not overlooked. With our new sdk3 launching very soon our focus has been turned to that primarily.

Thanks for your patience at this time,

Taylor Reynolds

Hi Bruce,

In the new SDK we require the READ_PHONE_STATE permission as such at this moment I cannot remove the permission.

Let me look into this issue a little more closely and see if there is a way that I can work around this.

Thanks,

Phil

Has there been any progress on this?

Has there been any progress on this?