Can I somehow get old addons signed? (AMO refuses two)

[AlexVallat]

I haven't tried this again recently, but if you're still looking for a solution for signing for private use it's worth a go:

https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/commen ... on_signed/

[Brummelchen]

same ID, another version - works - did myself some days ago.

[morat]

@AlexVallat
@Brummelchen

I'm curious if I can install a legacy extension in Fx Beta 57 without hacking the omni.ja file.

What happens when you try the manifest.json hack in Fx Beta 57?

Do you get a message in the about:addons page like so?

This add-on could not be installed because it has not been verified.

Custom Buttons could not be installed because it is not compatible with Firefox 57.0.

Firefox Portable Beta
http://portableapps.com/apps/internet/f ... table/test

@avada

The mozilla.cfg hack fails in Fx Beta 57 because the developers disabled eval.

Code: Select all

alert(typeof Components.utils.import("...", {}).eval); // undefined, not function

[AlexVallat]

The method I posted is just for signing, doesn't do anything to make 57 load legacy extensions. You could use the developer edition, though, that still honours the extensions.legacy.enabled pref.

[Brummelchen]

the beta is not allowed to use legacy extension. and i am not sure if current state can use legacy extension properly - because v56 also has several issues with legacy extensions - i wont count on that and for real it makes no sense to use legacy extension on newer firefox, not only because the xul/xpcom api is vanishing bit by bit.

my current state for legacy is frozen, i only insert webxtensions (for my own purpose) and i am able to sign those.

[avada]

The mozilla.cfg hack fails in Fx Beta 57 because the developers disabled eval.

Lucky I decided to stay on FF56 then. With the removed APIs I'm quite sure a lot (maybe most) of my addons would break anyway. The UI would definitely be inferior without CTR and TMP.

Maybe one of the FF forks/custom-builds will somehow retain XUL addons support with the necessary APIs. Or patches new (useful) stuff from later FF versions creating sort of a hybrid. Otherwise I won't be seeing anything of FF57+ for the foreseeable future.

[Brummelchen]

no hybrid, dream on
go palemoon if you need hybrid. but you exchange one problem with another. destination unknown

[morat]

@Brummelchen

Infocatcher got Custom Buttons and DOM Inspector working in Fx Nightly 57.

http://custombuttons.sourceforge.net/fo ... 423#p70423
http://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/user/Infocatcher/

I got these extensions working in Fx Beta 57 by hacking the omni.ja file.

http://custombuttons.sourceforge.net/fo ... 701#p71701

I'm curious if I can install these extensions in Fx Beta 57 without hacking the omni.ja file.

AFAIK, I can't override a resource file. (e.g. AddonSettings.jsm)

I can't redefine a non-configurable property. (e.g. AddonSettings.ALLOW_LEGACY_EXTENSIONS)

Chrome Registration override
http://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs ... n#override
http://mike.kaply.com/2013/05/06/dont-u ... ent-253796

Reference
http://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-beta/sou ... ttings.jsm
http://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-beta/sea ... .%5BA-Z%5D

@avada

Personally, I want to keep using the DOM Inspector extension as long as possible.

P.S.

I won't use browsers like Pale Moon.

If someone ever cared enough to target Pale Moon users they would have an absolute field day with all the known Firefox vulnerabilities they could use.

Hacker News
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13393332

[Brummelchen]

sorry, i dont care about legacy extension in firefox 57++
as written the legacy api will vanish bit by bit.

[avada]

@avada

Personally, I want to keep using the DOM Inspector extension as long as possible.

P.S.

I won't use browsers like Pale Moon.

Hacker News user wrote:
If someone ever cared enough to target Pale Moon users they would have an absolute field day with all the known Firefox vulnerabilities they could use.


Hacker News
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13393332

Your choice. To me obscure edge cases that no-one ever encountered in real life is not a deal breaker.
(Though at this point I'm more curious about waterfox.)