#DOWNLOAD FIREBUG FOR FIREFOX 17 PATCH#
#DOWNLOAD FIREBUG FOR FIREFOX 17 FULL#
#DOWNLOAD FIREBUG FOR FIREFOX 17 PLUS#
#DOWNLOAD FIREBUG FOR FIREFOX 17 WINDOWS#

In order for *us* to use the XPI hosted away from AMO, they need to upload the AMO-blessed XPI (so why bother self-hosting, anyway?).

The AMO copy passed 'full' review, but developers sometimes like hosting their own unlisted copies, which is a problem for packaging. This is because Mozilla doesn't allow system installations of self-hosted (unlisted) addons (apparently neither the OS nor the extension is trusted enough).

#DOWNLOAD FIREBUG FOR FIREFOX 17 PATCH#

I believe the problem is that you are downloading the version hosted by - in my original patch I switched to the AMO version. Noticing we are collecting duplicates because of firefox-adblock-plus. Can you change the title from 'extension signing and the future' to 'missing signatures for Firefox 43+'.Īlthough this will totally break aur/firefox-extension-https-everywhere, the new version has been waiting to be signed since August. I opened this bug report intending it be about Firefox itself, and extension packages by association, but I guess since we already have a bug about Firefox, this bug should just be about the extensions. And what if someone rebuilt Firefox themself with it turned on? If mandatory extension signing is turned off, it is still more 'proper' to package them in a way that doesn't depend on having it turned off. Obviously it is up to Mozilla to actually approve any updates. As of the current published versions, they all work properly with my fixes. If mandatory extension signing is left on, then the extension packages are fundamentally broken without my fixes. (I am not sure of the precise implications re: official branding, are they really fundamentally tied together? Any uncertainty is simply down to me not knowing much about building Firefox.)īut I also think extensions should be packaged in the *best* way possible, regardless of Arch's decision about Firefox itself. Shockingly, it was reviewed on time I guess. I realized as I wrote this that they updated today. (Firebug is also updated to the latest version. )Īttached are some patches that build the current community/firefox-* extensions in a way that validates with Firefox.

#DOWNLOAD FIREBUG FOR FIREFOX 17 WINDOWS#

Cue subjective rant about protecting Windows users by taking away user choice. So I for one would still like to see this so-called feature disabled. This also breaks every AUR extension which build from git. Although for the first time ever, they got it reviewed on time? So, hope for the future I guess. complex) to (usually) get fully reviewed in a reasonable timeframe.

#DOWNLOAD FIREBUG FOR FIREFOX 17 PLUS#

Unfortunately it seems Adblock Plus is too useful (i.e. It seems extensions are created with META-INF/* having permissions 600 and when unzipped only root can read them.

#DOWNLOAD FIREBUG FOR FIREFOX 17 FULL#

Hopefully there is some way of disabling this check going forward - I believe unbranded builds and the Developer builds will continue to allow the preference?Īt the very least, users should be allowed to specify that they wish to ignore signing requirements, and *perhaps* this preference should be installed in vendor.jsĪ fix can be applied if the extension has been 'fully reviewed', but it is necessary make sure the META-INF folder has full read permissions.

* community/firefox-adblock-plus 2.6.11-1Īs well as many similar packages in the AUR.Īll these extensions currently show warnings in about:addons and now that Firefox 43. This breaks (some) extensions which are installed to /usr/lib/firefox/browser/extensions/* Firefox 43 i̶s̶ ̶s̶c̶h̶e̶d̶u̶l̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ enforces extension signing, and Firefox 44 is scheduled to disable the about:config override that allows you to ignore that.

Download firebug for firefox 17