The future is to continue with old add-ons or what?

[intofix]

Today with Firefox 38.0.1 i have had the surprise to see all my add-ons updated/signed. Today with Pale Moon 25.4.1 nothing happens. So hey is my preferred browser dead?

[squarefractal]

So hey is my preferred browser dead?

No.

I just got two signed updates pushed.

[intofix]

FF: 36 add-ons installed > check for update > 34 updated, 2 beta versions not updated.
PM: 32 add-ons installed > check for update > no update available

You're lucky

[_Poke_]

I got some updates automatically, for NoScript and DownThemAll. These are now on the signed version.
Some other extensions are not getting updated though, such as Stylish and User Agent Switcher. Looks like I'm one version (minor point release) out of date for each of them. Checking for updates did nothing, so I just went and installed the new version.

It would be tedious to go and manually update your 32 add-ons, but it looks like there's nothing stopping you from doing that. Or perhaps a little waiting will see these issues ironed out.

[intofix]

Indispensable add-ons for ads or scripts already > problems
Other like Keefox needs same versions installed in all my browsers otherwise > problems
Themes not compatible > obliged to keep old versions > problems
I hope this new problem will be fixed soon otherwise > new headache

[New Tobin Paradigm]

Right.. Add-on updates from AMO were suspended before (or nearly before) the re-signing of add-ons went into affect. This was in an effort to allow us to check a random sampling as to make absolutely sure we would not get a repeat of what happened last time. Namely the 25.3.1 and older issues with signed add-ons crashing the browser.

However, Thursday is my defacto day off (I'm entitled to at least one! ) so I threw a kill switch in to prevent add-on updates from AMO until I have a chance to check them out. Which I shall be doing so today.

These measures were put into place and were deemed required to not only prevent add-ons from updating in the previous issue but as protection for future issues.

As said, the evaluation will be made later on today and perhaps into tomorrow. There is every possibility they are fine and all will work properly and even allow the older Pale Moon versions being unwisely ran to get what may be a tide of updates from AMO as well.

You can follow on going developments with this at the GitHub repo for the Pale Moon Add-ons Site issue tracker here: https://github.com/Pale-Moon-Addons-Team/phoebus/issues/4

We do apologize for this inconvenience but it was done with the best intentions to our loyal and fantastic users.

More will be forth-coming as I commandeer this thread and of course on the issue tracker!

MODERATOR: Please move to the Pale Moon Add-ons Site sub-board!

Additionally, keep in mind you will only ever get updates for add-ons from AMO that are in the min/max range for Firefox 24 so if the add-on stopped being compatible least on an install.rdf level it won't be offered. Those are handled by us on a case by case basis like we have been.

[intofix]

Right. The evaluation will be made later on today and perhaps into tomorrow.

Thanks for the explicit response. Yes i'm an unconditional and loyal PM user but as unfortunately we can't run two instances of Pale Moon Desktop, as the official PM portable version is not truly portable and not even recommended > in roaming i have experienced myself interferences profiles..., my forced choice is to have Firefox and Pale Moon running together. So i'll wait you fix that, i understand that you could not do otherwise, so no need apologize

[Cassette]

Personally I'd like to see something a little more elegant than a ".1-signed" at the end of every extension. It needlessly mangles the add-on name. I should probably find the right place to lodge a complaint...

[intofix]

Personally I'd like to see something a little more elegant than a ".1-signed" at the end of every extension.

For me the most important thing i certainly would not like to experience in future, like in Chrome, is that the browser itself uninstall my non-signed extensions. Hope with PM it will never happen, otherwise > directly to trash like Chrome.

[Cassette]

That won't happen with Pale Moon because Pale Moon will never require add-ons to be signed. Firefox will, though. So that could happen with Firefox. Mozilla is always looking for creative new ways to alienate their users.

[Moonchild]

As stated in many places, you can run the portable stand-alone aside a desktop installed version by uncommenting the "MOZ_NO_REMOTE" line in the portable .ini

Concurrency has nothing to do with portability, please try not to confuse the two.

[New Tobin Paradigm]

Additionally, you can add the command line arguments to any mozilla-based binary -no-remote -p /path/to/alt/profile and get roughly the same affect (not AS isolated but just as concurrent).

@Cassette We have no control over what people do with their add-ons or what AMO does. We just need to make sure their signed add-ons will not cause issues but as for versioning with "-signed" that is arbitrary. As arbitrary as "-pm" on the old pseudo-statics.

[Cassette]

@Tobin I didn't imply you had control over that which is why I said that I should find the right place to lodge a complaint. My adding that line was stating that I'm completely aware that neither you nor anyone related to this Pale Moon forum has any control over it. This problem may come to work itself out in time once Firefox requires all extensions to be signed. Non-signed add-ons won't be allowed so noting that they are signed would be pointless and Mozilla, if they have any sense, will stop adding it to the signed add-ons.

[New Tobin Paradigm]

@Tobin I didn't imply you had control over that which is why I said that I should find the right place to lodge a complaint. My adding that line was stating that I'm completely aware that neither you nor anyone related to this Pale Moon forum has any control over it. This problem may come to work itself out in time once Firefox requires all extensions to be signed. Non-signed add-ons won't be allowed so noting that they are signed would be pointless and Mozilla, if they have any sense, will stop adding it to the signed add-ons.

MAYBE.. I dunno if they will care. They don't care about the fact that such add-ons have flawed and broken signing. Don't care that it takes control out of developers hands to sign at all or sign how they want. Don't follow any standard. Don't care if users get served the wrong add-ons (see amo ridiculously old versions being served from the site issue).

The only way we got signing stopped the first time was because it affected old Firefox builds (Yeah, no one was more surprised than I to see them do something for less than current release) and they put a bandaid on their signing technique and relanded it yesterday.

[intofix]

Concurrency has nothing to do with portability, please try not to confuse the two.

Not really understood this: "Concurrency has nothing to do with portability"? I know what you means by "portability", i have not the same approach. For me it means > no mess leaving after closing like in AppData/Local or AppData/Roaming. Already tried your portable version, as already said > aleatory problems i can't explain, little example with the icon in Seven's taskbar i could not attach, probably due for unknown reasons to some interferences somewhere etc...

[New Tobin Paradigm]

We are off-topic. If you have issues with Pale Moon Portable please create a new thread in the correct sub-board.

[intofix]

My first interrogation was about a Pale Moon dysfunction. Then i was talking shortly about the necessity for me to have some add-ons in same version regularly updated in all my browsers . Talking about PM portable was also a necessity to explain why.

MODERATOR: Please move to the Pale Moon Add-ons Site sub-board!
We are off-topic. If you have issues with Pale Moon Portable please create a new thread in the correct sub-board.

Have you tried a square moon instead of round in your signature?

[New Tobin Paradigm]

I have finished my evaluation. AMO is now open to all post-v25 clients once again. We will be keeping an eye on this and on MozCo's AMO Team.

I will leave this thread open for discussion. However, changes regarding this will show up on the repo issue tracker before here so keep an eye if you are interested.

[intofix]

Working now thanks, except for some i have updated manually > Keefox 1.4.7 to 1.4.8.1-signed, Scrapbook X 1.12.0 to Scrapbook X 1.12.0a46.1-signed, StatusbarEx 0.3.5 to StatusbarEx 0.3.5.1-signed. I noticed a strange behavior > Scrapbook X version 1.12.3 not signed = non automatically updated but NoScript 2.69.26 not signed updated > probably other headache in perspective...

[New Tobin Paradigm]

Working now thanks, except for some i have updated manually > Keefox 1.4.7 to 1.4.8.1-signed, Scrapbook X 1.12.0 to Scrapbook X 1.12.0a46.1-signed, StatusbarEx 0.3.5 to StatusbarEx 0.3.5.1-signed. I noticed a strange behavior > Scrapbook X version 1.12.3 not signed = non automatically updated but NoScript 2.69.26 not signed updated > probably other headache in perspective...

Some Add-ons like that for some reason are not giving latest versions via update check. Dunno why exactly but there is nothing that can be done as it is AMO giving out the information as you can see for your self the current version it gives out is 1.4.4.1-signed.. This is the same output given to latest trunk Firefox.

Code: Select all

https://versioncheck.addons.mozilla.org/update/VersionCheck.php?reqVersion=2&id=keefox@chris.tomlinson&appID={ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}&appVersion=24.9&compatMode=normal