Looking at porting some extensions for my own use; anyone else interested in these?
Moderators: FranklinDM, Lootyhoof
Looking at porting some extensions for my own use; anyone else interested in these?
I'm looking at doing least-effort ports of the following old Firefox extensions over the next couple of days unless someone else takes them up, but I'm not going to take the extra time to correct metadata, re-icon, rename, package, and publish if no one else is interested in them:
-FireTitle 0.5.7
-ImageBlock 3.1
-Old Location Bar 2.1.7
-Remove It Permanently 1.0.6.10
-TiddlyFox 1.0alpha18
All of these are at least mostly functional for me as of pre-29.2.0.
-FireTitle 0.5.7
-ImageBlock 3.1
-Old Location Bar 2.1.7
-Remove It Permanently 1.0.6.10
-TiddlyFox 1.0alpha18
All of these are at least mostly functional for me as of pre-29.2.0.
-
- Moongazer
- Posts: 10
- Joined: 2014-11-04, 17:45
- Location: United Kingdom
Re: Looking at porting some extensions for my own use; anyone else interested in these?
I'd be very interested in Old Location Bar, please!
Re: Looking at porting some extensions for my own use; anyone else interested in these?
Mostly functional isn't good enough. Also remember to follow licenses to the letter.
Re: Looking at porting some extensions for my own use; anyone else interested in these?
Let me be a little clearer: The functionality I actually use is known to work. I haven't tested every feature of all five extensions, *and won't*, but have no reason to believe that anything is broken. If someone finds a feature that doesn't work, it will likely be dropped rather than fixed, because I simply don't have time to do too much in-depth probing into the codebases. I won't knowingly distribute anything with user-accessible broken functionality; I have more ethics than that.New Tobin Paradigm wrote: ↑2021-04-27, 22:29Mostly functional isn't good enough. Also remember to follow licenses to the letter.
If anyone else who has more time is willing to do a better job on these, I will *gladly* hand the job over to them and go back to the stack of Gentoo Linux ebuilds that were occupying my spare time before the "we're no longer accepting Firefox extensions" bombshell landed in my lap today. But in this case, it may be a choice between me doing what I can for now, and these extensions becoming unavailable to the average user. If what I produce doesn't meet the standards of the official add-on distribution system for Pale Moon, that's fine—I can house my stuff elsewhere.
And I already checked the licenses—they're variously GPL, MPL, or BSD. Nothing that should be a problem. (There was a sixth extension that I dropped from the list because of licensing, actually.)
Re: Looking at porting some extensions for my own use; anyone else interested in these?
Well you're not going to be allowed to fork and run. Do it right or don't do it at all.
Re: Looking at porting some extensions for my own use; anyone else interested in these?
-Remove It Permanently 1.0.6.10 would be good.
P.
P.
-
- Moongazer
- Posts: 8
- Joined: 2019-06-06, 13:54
Re: Looking at porting some extensions for my own use; anyone else interested in these?
Hi,
I'm using "TiddlyWiki for Firefox 2.0.1" which, I think, is the last version made by Jeremy Ruston.
This extension is no longer available on Internet to Download (see https://tiddlywiki.com/static/TiddlyFox.html)
I have preciously preserved the last .XPI I found; and think it is simple enough to start porting job.
Here is the RDF file from the XPI :
Because I'm still using the first version of Tiddly Wiki (all my personal docs are made with it), I'm very interested to porting this one to the "officially" supported extensions.
I think there is non licensing issue because of BSD :
I'm using "TiddlyWiki for Firefox 2.0.1" which, I think, is the last version made by Jeremy Ruston.
This extension is no longer available on Internet to Download (see https://tiddlywiki.com/static/TiddlyFox.html)
I have preciously preserved the last .XPI I found; and think it is simple enough to start porting job.
Here is the RDF file from the XPI :
Code: Select all
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<RDF xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:em="http://www.mozilla.org/2004/em-rdf#">
<Description about="urn:mozilla:install-manifest">
<em:id>tiddlyfox@tiddlywiki.org</em:id>
<em:type>2</em:type>
<em:bootstrap>true</em:bootstrap>
<em:unpack>false</em:unpack>
<em:version>2.0.1</em:version>
<em:name>TiddlyWiki for Firefox</em:name>
<em:description>The official TiddlyWiki extension for Firefox. Subject to explicit user permission, it enables TiddlyWiki to save changes directly to the file system</em:description>
<em:creator>Jeremy Ruston</em:creator>
<em:targetApplication>
<Description>
<em:id>{ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}</em:id>
<em:minVersion>38.0a1</em:minVersion>
<em:maxVersion>*</em:maxVersion>
</Description>
</em:targetApplication>
</Description>
</RDF>
I think there is non licensing issue because of BSD :
Code: Select all
{
"name": "tiddlywiki",
"title": "TiddlyWiki for Firefox",
"id": "tiddlyfox@tiddlywiki.org",
"description": "The official TiddlyWiki extension for Firefox. Subject to explicit user permission, it enables TiddlyWiki to save changes directly to the file system",
"author": "Jeremy Ruston",
"license": "BSD",
"version": "2.0.1"
}
Last edited by GruntZ on 2021-04-28, 08:57, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Knows the dark side
- Posts: 4983
- Joined: 2015-12-09, 15:45
Re: Looking at porting some extensions for my own use; anyone else interested in these?
Bear in mind that it is a bootstrapped extension, in light of this from the original thread asking for extensions to be ported (now locked) -
If it contains either of the mentioned files then it won't be eligible for submission but you can of course keep it for your personal use. Or if willing,step up to convert it to a classic XUL (overlay) extension.Please attempt to find out if they are Jetpack (Add-ons SDK) by looking for package.json or harness-options.json in the XPI file and if they are then DO NOT LIST THEM.
"One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them and in the darkness BIND them."
Linux Mint 21 Xfce x64 on HP i5-5200 laptop, 12 GB RAM.
AutoPageColor|PermissionsPlus|PMPlayer|Pure URL|RecordRewind|TextFX
Linux Mint 21 Xfce x64 on HP i5-5200 laptop, 12 GB RAM.
AutoPageColor|PermissionsPlus|PMPlayer|Pure URL|RecordRewind|TextFX
-
- Keeps coming back
- Posts: 786
- Joined: 2020-11-03, 06:47
- Location: Philippines
Re: Looking at porting some extensions for my own use; anyone else interested in these?
Jetpack/SDK extensions are not bootstrapped (which is not deprecated), but both of them are restartless.
merry mimas
XUL add-ons developer. You can find a list of add-ons I manage at http://rw.rs/~job/software.html.
Mima avatar by 絵虎. Pixiv post: https://www.pixiv.net/en/artworks/15431817
-
- Moongazer
- Posts: 8
- Joined: 2019-06-06, 13:54
Re: Looking at porting some extensions for my own use; anyone else interested in these?
Hi,
I have retrieve the original repository of Jeremy Ruston : https://github.com/TiddlyWiki/TiddlyFox
What to search in the repo to be sure the extension can (or not) be easily ported as "Palemoon official add-on" ?
The package.json file does not contain anything reminiscent of declaring a dependency on Jetpack :
https://github.com/TiddlyWiki/TiddlyFox ... ckage.json
The only file found in the .XPI, and where it was built (it is missing from the source repo) is "bootstrap.js", which contains references to some "/ sdk / ..." :
Is this kind of information that allows to know if the recovery of the extension will be possible or not?
And, in response to this ...moonbat wrote: ↑2021-04-28, 08:23Bear in mind that it is a bootstrapped extension, in light of this from the original thread asking for extensions to be ported (now locked) -If it contains either of the mentioned files then it won't be eligible for submission but you can of course keep it for your personal use. Or if willing,step up to convert it to a classic XUL (overlay) extension.Please attempt to find out if they are Jetpack (Add-ons SDK) by looking for package.json or harness-options.json in the XPI file and if they are then DO NOT LIST THEM.
How can I know if this extension (TiddlyFox) is Jetpack based or no ?jobbautista9 wrote: ↑2021-04-28, 09:04Jetpack/SDK extensions are not bootstrapped (which is not deprecated), but both of them are restartless.
I have retrieve the original repository of Jeremy Ruston : https://github.com/TiddlyWiki/TiddlyFox
What to search in the repo to be sure the extension can (or not) be easily ported as "Palemoon official add-on" ?
The package.json file does not contain anything reminiscent of declaring a dependency on Jetpack :
https://github.com/TiddlyWiki/TiddlyFox ... ckage.json
The only file found in the .XPI, and where it was built (it is missing from the source repo) is "bootstrap.js", which contains references to some "/ sdk / ..." :
Code: Select all
"use strict";
const { utils: Cu } = Components;
const rootURI = __SCRIPT_URI_SPEC__.replace("bootstrap.js", "");
const COMMONJS_URI = "resource://gre/modules/commonjs";
const { require } = Cu.import(COMMONJS_URI + "/toolkit/require.js", {});
const { Bootstrap } = require(COMMONJS_URI + "/sdk/addon/bootstrap.js");
var { startup, shutdown, install, uninstall } = new Bootstrap(rootURI);
-
- Moonbather
- Posts: 73
- Joined: 2021-04-06, 18:32
Re: Looking at porting some extensions for my own use; anyone else interested in these?
I don't see a way to submit Search Plugins, at least not on the Search Plugin page. Is it possible to submit them or is that not allowed? I created one for my own use for the Online Etymology Dictionary.New Tobin Paradigm » 2021-04-28, 02:13
Terms and concepts to know: http://developer.palemoon.org/addons/
-
- Astronaut
- Posts: 512
- Joined: 2015-08-23, 17:56
- Location: UK / France
Re: Looking at porting some extensions for my own use; anyone else interested in these?
You'll need to sign up here: Registration - Phoebus Panel
Forked extensions :
● Add-ons Inspector ● Auto Text Link ● Copy As Plain Text ● Copy Hyperlink Text ● FireFTP button replacement ● gSearch Bar ● Navigation Bar Enhancer ● New Tab Links ● Number Tabs ● Print Preview Button and Keyboard Shortcut 2 ● Scrollbar Search Marker ● Simple Marker ● Tabs To Portfolio ● Update Alert ● Web Developer's Toolbox ● Zap Anything
Hint: If you expect a reply to your PM, allow replies...
Re: Looking at porting some extensions for my own use; anyone else interested in these?
Only Extensions and Themes may be submitted at this time. More will come sooner than you think including userscripts and userstyles as well. Also planned for arbitrary transfer/reassignment so once the likes of Dictionaries, Personas, Search Plugins, User Scripts, and User Styles are available for user submission some users can take over those existing ones and keep them updated.
-
- Moonbather
- Posts: 73
- Joined: 2021-04-06, 18:32
Re: Looking at porting some extensions for my own use; anyone else interested in these?
OK, I'll keep an eye out for when those changes are made.
One other question: in order to get the icon for the menu display, I downloaded their favicon from their site, converted it to base 64 and put it in the xml. Is that legit or would permission from the OED people be required? I mean for distribution purposes, not for it just residing on my PC.
One other question: in order to get the icon for the menu display, I downloaded their favicon from their site, converted it to base 64 and put it in the xml. Is that legit or would permission from the OED people be required? I mean for distribution purposes, not for it just residing on my PC.
Re: Looking at porting some extensions for my own use; anyone else interested in these?
@New Tobin Paradigm: You're making it increasingly unlikely that I will submit any of this to the official add-ons repository, regardless of how much maintenance I decide to put in, by being hostile and abrasive. So you may assume henceforth that it's all going to go to an external repository and anyone involved with the official team may wash their hands of it.
---
So, we have individual requests for Old Location Bar (MPL1.1), RIP (GPL2), and possibly TiddlyFox (BSD). TiddlyFox 1.0 isn't a Jetpack user and contains no .json files of any sort. 2.0.1, which I have on a different machine, does appear to be Jetpack-based (places information in the "jetpack" directory in the user profile and contains bootstrap.js and package.json), and so is presumably not a desirable subject for porting. The best course of action would therefore be to determine when the switch was made and obtain the last pre-Jetpack version, then port that, after making sure it's functional.
---
@Figueroa: The icon may be trademarked. If it is, there may be something in the fine print at the bottom of the owners' webpage. The polite thing to do if you're not sure about its status is ask—the worst they can do is say no.
---
So, we have individual requests for Old Location Bar (MPL1.1), RIP (GPL2), and possibly TiddlyFox (BSD). TiddlyFox 1.0 isn't a Jetpack user and contains no .json files of any sort. 2.0.1, which I have on a different machine, does appear to be Jetpack-based (places information in the "jetpack" directory in the user profile and contains bootstrap.js and package.json), and so is presumably not a desirable subject for porting. The best course of action would therefore be to determine when the switch was made and obtain the last pre-Jetpack version, then port that, after making sure it's functional.
---
@Figueroa: The icon may be trademarked. If it is, there may be something in the fine print at the bottom of the owners' webpage. The polite thing to do if you're not sure about its status is ask—the worst they can do is say no.
Re: Looking at porting some extensions for my own use; anyone else interested in these?
I don't see how I have been hostile or abrasive to you in this thread. All I said to you was do it right or don't do it at all and don't fork and run. So your problem is you ARE going to do it regardless and it won't be right and you will fork and run?
Do I have this correct?
Do I have this correct?
-
- Themeist
- Posts: 1569
- Joined: 2012-02-09, 23:35
- Location: United Kingdom
Re: Looking at porting some extensions for my own use; anyone else interested in these?
Please do let it be known that when we say "don't fork and run" it only means "don't post the add-on without any intention of helping to fix in future". If it works perfectly now, then this will probably only be if there are any changes in the platform code that change how it behaves. You can still of course ask on the forums here if you've specific questions related to development and aren't sure of the answer.
-
- Apollo supporter
- Posts: 40
- Joined: 2014-10-14, 22:07
- Location: Planet Claire
Re: Looking at porting some extensions for my own use; anyone else interested in these?
Remove It Permanently 1.0.6.10 would be of interest, and appreciated, as I used to use it extensively some time ago. Not a high priority, at least here. Thanks for asking.