Unbranded builds not signed?

[Drumbrake]

So, those elusive "unbranded" builds for people determined to keep using their addons do exist somewhere according to https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Extens ... ded_Builds, but they are unsigned, meaning that you only have checksums to verify their integrity but not a digital signature: why is that?

Why aren't they signing the checksums (or the installer itself) just as they do with all the other builds, including nightlies and eme-free versions?

Is that just another way to divert people away from those versions?

[toolong]

IIRC the "unbranded builds" where not meant so that Joe_Average_User could use unsigned extensions but for Extension Developers so that every time they made a minor change they would not have to sign the changed extension to test it.

I do not know why the builds are not signed. Perhaps they did not see it as necessary?

[Drumbrake]

Whatever they were meant for, digital signing these days is a requirement and they know this (at least, folks rambling on the security blog about how secure Firefox is becoming should know) .

More so, digital signing isn't something that Joe_Average_User is supposed to know about (neither they are taking any steps to change that... like say educating people about digital signing...) so for builds hidden well beyond the reach of such users ir would make all the more sense to sign them - not unlike the do already with the nightly builds, which aren't meant for average user either.

[toolong]

You don't know how to use checksums?

[Drumbrake]

Yes, and they aren't digital signing.

[toolong]

Well. No they are not.

I guess you could ask them since no one here appears to know the answer.

Or I guess that you could complain to them. Or maybe put in a request on Bugzilla.

You do remember that when FF 57 is released at the end of this year most extensions, signed or not, will stop working if not rewritten in WebExtension?

[Drumbrake]

You do remember that when FF 57 is released at the end of this year most extensions, signed or not, will stop working if not rewritten in WebExtension?

By then, I hope that all of the people working hard to cripple Firefox have been fired and we're back on the right track - not in order to please us, rather because building a better browser than Chrome is the most intelligent thing to do and something to be proud of, eventually.

Well. No they are not.

I guess you could ask them since no one here appears to know the answer.

Or I guess that you could complain to them. Or maybe put in a request on Bugzilla.

To what end? They know already that these builds should indeed be signed, just like the nightlies- which aren't meant for average joe either.
Simply put, they don't care.

[toolong]

To finish this off. I use three extensions. All three come from AMO. And all three are signed. And all three are already ported to WebExtensions.

But back to you. Your choices appear, to me, to be live without your unsigned extensions. Or? Convince the developer(s) to get them signed. Or? Get a personal account at AMO and sign them for yourself.

Also remembering that your unsigned extensions, assuming that they are not Webextnsion compatible, will die in November when Mozilla drops support for XUL. Signed or not.
Since it does not directly affect me I do not know if the last ESR before the switch will still support XUL but IIUC it will not support unsigned extensions. I don't really know.

You have a problem. Good luck.

[Drumbrake]

As many others do with Mozilla.

[jimfitter]

The unsigned builds are still at 50.0.1. Have they stopped updating them?

[WaltS48]

The unsigned builds are still at 50.0.1. Have they stopped updating them?

Maybe you could find something in one of the IRC channels logged here.

LogBot

My best guess would be #build, #developers, #firefox or #releng.

[therube]

unsigned builds are still at 50.0.1

If I'm looking correctly, the wiki page points to 50.1.0.
And if you follow along in the parent directory, http://archive.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/ ... 486638562/ has a 51.0.2. (Or similarly in the -win64- tree.)

I've no clue really.
And these "mozilla-release" look to be "nightlies" of some sort?

[barbaz]

@jimfitter They don't always update that link. Check here - https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/tin ... -on-devel/

@therube use the .txt file to determine what it's built from.

[jimfitter]

Thanks to all 3 of you, for helping set me straight. It's much appreciated.