Add-ons Site General Discussion

Anything to do with the Pale Moon add-ons website.

Moderators: satrow, FranklinDM, Lootyhoof

Forum rules
Important: This board is for specifics regarding the add-ons website (addons.palemoon.org) and not to report extension compatibility issues or discuss different extensions.
Please only post here when your topic is directly related to the add-ons website service so our moderators don't have to move your posts all the time...
User avatar
New Tobin Paradigm
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 4611
Joined: Tue, 09 Oct 2012, 19:37

Re: Add-ons Site General Discussion

Unread postby New Tobin Paradigm » Mon, 03 Nov 2014, 05:07

mikeysc wrote:No problem, just that we can't really do anything to speed it along.

My real interest personally, for what it's worth, is in finding older, good, abandoned extensions that can be forked for Pale Moon. But generally not the kind that are most popular (such as google, youtube, video, download speeder-uppers, styling or anything flashy); but rather those that enhance the basic browser functions, especially privacy and security related functions. If anybody that can wants to help with that, PM me.


That is generally what I said here: viewtopic.php?f=44&t=6307

Our top priority is abandoned add-ons, and insanely popular add-ons like the adblockers. It will take time.. I mean WHO ELSE HAS EVER ACTUALLY TRIED TO DO WHAT WE ARE DOING?! With a mozilla-like infrastructure, a fully forked and independently developed Mozilla codebase. Etc. No one.. Not to the degree we are and if you want to harp on it or doubt it or think it is not progressing far or fast enough or whatever..

Realize it is still going to happen and no amount of "Moonchild could get hit by a bus" or "Not backed by a big corp" non-sense will stop the attempt and effort. The future is... The future. Whatever form it will take it shall take. But it is happening. And it is our.. my, Moonchild's mikeysec's lootyhoof's, the beta testers, and everyone else commitment to it that will continue to make the possibilities become what you would in the long term expect. Besides, if we don't.. who will? Mozilla? Yeah, I am sure they will get right on that for you :wtf:

Off-topic:
Boy did i go a little bit off topic or what.. lol.. Oh well.. Still needed to be said.. and Still CONTINUES to need to be said.

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 21997
Joined: Sun, 28 Aug 2011, 17:27
Location: 58.5°N 15.5°E
Contact:

Re: Add-ons Site General Discussion

Unread postby Moonchild » Tue, 04 Nov 2014, 13:53

Off-topic:
Matt A Tobin wrote:Off-topic:
Boy did i go a little bit off topic or what.. lol.. Oh well.. Still needed to be said.. and Still CONTINUES to need to be said.


Sadly, yes.
Improving Mozilla code: You know you're on the right track with code changes when you spend the majority of your time deleting code.

"If you want to build a better world for yourself, you have to be willing to build one for everybody." -- Coyote Osborne

User avatar
gi_jimbo
Fanatic
Fanatic
Posts: 106
Joined: Sun, 14 Sep 2014, 20:41
Location: USA

Re: Add-ons Site General Discussion

Unread postby gi_jimbo » Tue, 04 Nov 2014, 16:50

Matt A Tobin wrote:...

Realize it is still going to happen and no amount of "Moonchild could get hit by a bus" or "Not backed by a big corp" non-sense will stop the attempt and effort. The future is... The future. Whatever form it will take it shall take. But it is happening. And it is our.. my, Moonchild's mikeysec's lootyhoof's, the beta testers, and everyone else commitment to it that will continue to make the possibilities become what you would in the long term expect. Besides, if we don't.. who will? Mozilla? Yeah, I am sure they will get right on that for you :wtf:


:clap:

Edit: Quoted my favorite part of this rant for emphasis.
- James

Why I love Pale Moon: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11079#p77697

michko

Re: Add-ons Site General Discussion

Unread postby michko » Wed, 05 Nov 2014, 09:57

I am not sure if something's wrong with my browser (v. 25.0.2 x64 Linux), but on FinderBar's page it says that version is 1.2.3. However when I install it, about:addons tells me that version installed is 1.2.2. I have no clue about extensions so I guessed that xpi is a simple archive file and, after extracting it, I saw in install.rdf that it claims that version is 1.2.2. Therefore, my conclusion is that there's a good chance that maintainer forgot to change version number, or worse accidentally swapped files. Either that or my Pale Moon didn't update properly. Any ideas?

Here's a little bit of off-topic:
Does Pale Moon check for updates for both Mozilla and Pale Moon site extensions? Also there's a strange glitch with some GTK2+ themes, but that's really off-topic.

Thank you in advance, I really appreciate your hard work.

mikeysc

Re: Add-ons Site General Discussion

Unread postby mikeysc » Wed, 05 Nov 2014, 18:06

michko, what you described is correct, the two numbers don't match; only Tobin can say which is correct. But what is posted there is the latest you can get right now, so if it works for you, then no worries.

On another subject, I think it would be helpful if the Known Incompatibles page would include the Firefox version numbers (min and max) that Pale Moon accepts so that when people go to AMO they can make an informed decision about whether an extension is likely to install without requiring modifying and not simply depending on AMO's compatibility determination. (every user will not and should not have to search this whole forum to find it)

User avatar
New Tobin Paradigm
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 4611
Joined: Tue, 09 Oct 2012, 19:37

Re: Add-ons Site General Discussion

Unread postby New Tobin Paradigm » Wed, 05 Nov 2014, 18:14

mikeysc wrote:michko, what you described is correct, the two numbers don't match; only Tobin can say which is correct. But what is posted there is the latest you can get right now, so if it works for you, then no worries.

On another subject, I think it would be helpful if the Known Incompatibles page would include the Firefox version numbers (min and max) that Pale Moon accepts so that when people go to AMO they can make an informed decision about whether an extension is likely to install without requiring modifying and not simply depending on AMO's compatibility determination. (every user will not and should not have to search this whole forum to find it)


The typo is on the site. Anyway, the addon must have a minimum compat of 24.x or lower. That was stated in the release notes and all over the forum. It hardly matters anyway because higher add-ons won't install.

mikeysc

Re: Add-ons Site General Discussion

Unread postby mikeysc » Wed, 05 Nov 2014, 18:24

This is the only mention of "24." in the release notes on the PM site:
Disconnect of Pale Moon's "Firefox compatibility" version from Pale Moon's application version to maintain Firefox 24.* extension compatibility regardless of Pale Moon version.
That is a generic compatibility statement, not the same thing (and min and max are not there at all). I already gave my opinion about having to search the forums for this important (IMO) information.

User avatar
New Tobin Paradigm
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 4611
Joined: Tue, 09 Oct 2012, 19:37

Re: Add-ons Site General Discussion

Unread postby New Tobin Paradigm » Wed, 05 Nov 2014, 19:14

Because 24 is our firefox compat level and always will be for min max it is 24 within the range of both

mikeysc

Re: Add-ons Site General Discussion

Unread postby mikeysc » Wed, 05 Nov 2014, 20:04

I have some work to do in the real world this afternoon so I'll come back to this later. But for now here is one of many that I could link to that installs fine.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo ... -gestures/
ext ver 0.26; AMO: works with FF 1.0 and later; install.rdf: FF min 1.0, max 21.0

I recall Moonchild saying somewhere on the forum Max ver# needed to be >=4.0 but it could take a while to find an example to test and prove that. But assuming that is correct, it looks like limits would be:
Min <= 24.9 (no actual .9 ver) and Max >=4.0 (obviously both these outer limits will not occur in the same extension).

User avatar
New Tobin Paradigm
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 4611
Joined: Tue, 09 Oct 2012, 19:37

Re: Add-ons Site General Discussion

Unread postby New Tobin Paradigm » Wed, 05 Nov 2014, 22:16

Min is strictly 24.9 but in nearly every circumstance it would be 24.0

michko

Re: Add-ons Site General Discussion

Unread postby michko » Thu, 06 Nov 2014, 01:49

mikeysc wrote:michko, what you described is correct, the two numbers don't match; only Tobin can say which is correct. But what is posted there is the latest you can get right now, so if it works for you, then no worries.


Exactly. The very reason I had to ask. If I remember correctly there were two versions 1.2.2. and 1.2.3. If both versions were on site I would compare them with checksum or diff. I don't worry -- it works for me, but I simply saw that version numbers didn't match, so I wanted to make both users and developers aware. I didn't post here to nag Tobin. I simply want to see Pale Moon grow into great browser bringing even better browsing experience.

mikeysc wrote:On another subject, I think it would be helpful if the Known Incompatibles page would include the Firefox version numbers (min and max) that Pale Moon accepts so that when people go to AMO they can make an informed decision about whether an extension is likely to install without requiring modifying and not simply depending on AMO's compatibility determination. (every user will not and should not have to search this whole forum to find it)


There's an answer in FAQ which informs us that we have to look for Firefox 24.* version of an extension. My question was does Pale Moon use both Mozilla's and Pale Moon's extensions sites to upgrade (even when one manually checks for updates). By reductio as absurdum the answer is yes in both cases. Imagine situation when Pale Moon upgrades extensions from AMO, but doesn't from its own extensions site. Sounds silly, doesn't it? But then you check for updates and FinderBar Tweak shows that there's no version change. Such things can buffle laymen like myself. So I had to ask this, because this is new to all of us. It is my understanding that there's no enough manpower, yet developers were forced to jump to next (minor) version in order to introduce compatibility mode, because users were leaving and perhaps left this for later (though I doubt it).

Thank you my friend,
michko

mikeysc

Re: Add-ons Site General Discussion

Unread postby mikeysc » Thu, 06 Nov 2014, 02:50

The second part of my post which started "on another subject" wasn't in reply to your question but to other things I had been involved in recently and was just on my mind so I took that opportunity to post it. If there is relevance, though, that's because a lot of these issues tie in somewhere.

There's an answer in FAQ which informs us that we have to look for Firefox 24.* version of an extension.


Yes, I'm well aware of the version 24 general compatibility. However, it is misunderstood and misapplied compared to how it is actually working. We are not limited to extensions that specify a min-max range inclusive of FF 24. I lost interest in continuing the argument however and will pursue another approach (or perhaps just let everyone figure it out for themselves).

michko

Re: Add-ons Site General Discussion

Unread postby michko » Thu, 06 Nov 2014, 03:10

I misunderstood the 'On another subject...' part because my post had two parts. I thought that you didn't understand my question because of my poor English. The truth was that I didn't understand you because of my poor English :)

Cheers,
michko

mikeysc

Re: Add-ons Site General Discussion

Unread postby mikeysc » Thu, 06 Nov 2014, 03:38

That has the makings of a classic collectible quote. :)

As far as your 2nd question about the updating process, well I skipped over it partly because I was distracted at the time and partly because it is more Tobin's speciality. But from what I understand the process is not fully implemented yet. So what it is doing right now is a temporary approach where it directs requests to the addons.palemoon server first and that server forwards the request to addons.mozilla because there are no automatic updates available from the palemoon site yet. Once, fully working you would not get the update from mozilla unless there is no match at the palemoon site. By doing it this way it will be easy to switch to using the palemoon site when it's ready. (Tobin correct me if I'm wrong.) And don't forget you have some control too. You can set it to not install updates automatically if you prefer. That way you can review the "Available Updates" notices section and only install updates that interest you (though having not seen it in action yet, I don't know if it will specify from which server the update is being delivered).

User avatar
New Tobin Paradigm
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 4611
Joined: Tue, 09 Oct 2012, 19:37

Re: Add-ons Site General Discussion

Unread postby New Tobin Paradigm » Thu, 06 Nov 2014, 04:50

mikeysc wrote:That has the makings of a classic collectible quote. :)

As far as your 2nd question about the updating process, well I skipped over it partly because I was distracted at the time and partly because it is more Tobin's speciality. But from what I understand the process is not fully implemented yet. So what it is doing right now is a temporary approach where it directs requests to the addons.palemoon server first and that server forwards the request to addons.mozilla because there are no automatic updates available from the palemoon site yet. Once, fully working you would not get the update from mozilla unless there is no match at the palemoon site. By doing it this way it will be easy to switch to using the palemoon site when it's ready. (Tobin correct me if I'm wrong.) And don't forget you have some control too. You can set it to not install updates automatically if you prefer. That way you can review the "Available Updates" notices section and only install updates that interest you (though having not seen it in action yet, I don't know if it will specify from which server the update is being delivered).


You are exactly correct. In the current setup it checks our site for all updates but since there is no Pale Moon specific mechanism yet it does wholesale 302 redirect to amo.

In the future it will check our site against our db and if it found a match it will serve a response that the add-on manager will determine if it is applicable but if it doesn't match any in our db it will THEN turn around and 302 redirect the request to amo. The process proceeds (in the same way as above) If THAT finds no match then it will return basically an empty response.

But v25+ all requests are sent to addons.palemoon.org through https and either responds with an rdf manifest containing info for the add-on manager(future) OR redirects to amo where the same process happens(now and future). There will be no way to determine where it came from. But because it goes though US first chances are the add-on is Pale Moon specific it has an ID that amo would throw away anyway and would never see because it matched US first.

Keep in mind a few add-ons don't send update requests through either site as specified in install.rdf they may have their own update server. In that case we never see it nor does AMO. But we would in that event link externally anyway where you would get the add-on from the vendor site. See those [Whatever] Mail Checkers on the site for an example.

michko

Re: Add-ons Site General Discussion

Unread postby michko » Thu, 06 Nov 2014, 08:31

Thanks for clarification. That's all I wanted to know. I hope that this will be useful to other users, too.

Keep up the good work,
michko

Neil_Parks

Re: Add-ons Site General Discussion

Unread postby Neil_Parks » Fri, 07 Nov 2014, 04:48

Suggestion for the add-ons site: In addition to listing the available extensions by groups, also list them all A to Z.

User avatar
New Tobin Paradigm
Knows the dark side
Knows the dark side
Posts: 4611
Joined: Tue, 09 Oct 2012, 19:37

Re: Add-ons Site General Discussion

Unread postby New Tobin Paradigm » Fri, 07 Nov 2014, 07:52

Neil_Parks wrote:Suggestion for the add-ons site: In addition to listing the available extensions by groups, also list them all A to Z.


No. Use the cats or use the search. Not even AMO has this.

User avatar
back2themoon
Board Warrior
Board Warrior
Posts: 1159
Joined: Sun, 19 Aug 2012, 20:32

Re: Add-ons Site General Discussion

Unread postby back2themoon » Sat, 06 Dec 2014, 19:01

Author of the excellent YouTube Video and Audio Downloader (can also auto-mux 1080p DASH streams), promised Pale Moon compatibility when the new site is ready. Nice of them - thank you!
:thumbup:
Safe Mode / clean profile info: Menu/Help/Restart in Safe Mode
Information to include when asking for support - How to apply user agent overrides

Windows 10 Pro - Pale Moon x64 - FossaMail x64 - Emsisoft Anti-Malware

11ryanc
Fanatic
Fanatic
Posts: 188
Joined: Tue, 19 Nov 2013, 17:31
Location: Venus

Re: Add-ons Site General Discussion

Unread postby 11ryanc » Sat, 06 Dec 2014, 20:38

back2themoon wrote:Author of the excellent YouTube Video and Audio Downloader (can also auto-mux 1080p DASH streams), promised Pale Moon compatibility when the new site is ready. Nice of them - thank you!
:thumbup:

I use Downloadhelper since I download videos from other sources besides YouTube, but that's great to see more developers gaining awareness of Pale Moon.
Off-topic:
Speaking of Downloadhelper, does anyone know if they "officially" recognize PM or not?


Return to “The Pale Moon add-ons website”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests