unsigned extensions (again)

User Help for Mozilla Firefox
User avatar
patrickjdempsey
Posts: 23686
Joined: October 23rd, 2008, 11:43 am
Location: Asheville NC
Contact:

Re: unsigned extensions (again)

Post by patrickjdempsey »

The signing process is automatic but there are manual human code reviews and automated code reviews for EVERYTHING uploaded to AMO.

Aside from Conduit, AMO has for many years hosted many extensions of questionable functionality and Mozilla requires them to have privacy statements and opt out interfaces. There has been no policy change here TMK.
Tip of the day: If it has "toolbar" in the name, it's crap.
What my avatar is about: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/seamonkey/addon/sea-fox/
User avatar
therube
Posts: 21714
Joined: March 10th, 2004, 9:59 pm
Location: Maryland USA

Re: unsigned extensions (again)

Post by therube »

some extensions on AMO that say they are signed but Firefox still thinks they are not after a restart. HTML Validator is one:

That's screwed up, now isn't it!
Is there a bug on that?
Perhaps, Bug 1197206 - Validator misses innerHTML assigning?
Fire 750, bring back 250.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110420 SeaMonkey/2.0.14 Pinball CopyURL+ FetchTextURL FlashGot NoScript
User avatar
MarkRH
Posts: 1361
Joined: September 12th, 2007, 2:30 am
Location: Edmond, OK
Contact:

Re: unsigned extensions (again)

Post by MarkRH »

therube wrote:
some extensions on AMO that say they are signed but Firefox still thinks they are not after a restart. HTML Validator is one:

That's screwed up, now isn't it!
Is there a bug on that?
Perhaps, Bug 1197206 - Validator misses innerHTML assigning?


I dunno. I made a new one; although, I don't expect much traction with it. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1199376
User avatar
L.A.R. Grizzly
Posts: 5396
Joined: March 15th, 2005, 5:32 pm
Location: Upstate Ohio, USA
Contact:

Re: unsigned extensions (again)

Post by L.A.R. Grizzly »

MarkRH wrote:I dunno. I made a new one; although, I don't expect much traction with it. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1199376


I have two, signed, AMO hosted, extensions that FX says aren't verified. :-k This is going to be a big mess down the road! #-o

It won't be such a big deal to me, when FX kills CTR, I'll be moving on to SM.
Win7 Pro SP1 64 Bit
Comodo Internet Security
Pale Moon 33.1.0, Epyrus Mail 2.1.2, Firefox 115.10.0esr, Thunderbird 115.10.1, and SeaMonkey 2.53.18.2
User avatar
MarkRH
Posts: 1361
Joined: September 12th, 2007, 2:30 am
Location: Edmond, OK
Contact:

Re: unsigned extensions (again)

Post by MarkRH »

Well I know CTR (at least beta versions) show as signed in both 40.0.3 and latest 41beta. At least no warning is shown.
User avatar
L.A.R. Grizzly
Posts: 5396
Joined: March 15th, 2005, 5:32 pm
Location: Upstate Ohio, USA
Contact:

Re: unsigned extensions (again)

Post by L.A.R. Grizzly »

MarkRH wrote:Well I know CTR (at least beta versions) show as signed in both 40.0.3 and latest 41beta. At least no warning is shown.


That's not what I meant. Aris mentioned that future changes in FX may make CTR obsolete.

Aris wrote:

"If CTR won't be able to use css tweaks/hacks or to modify, move, create or remove ui elements (like buttons, toolbars, menuitems, colors etc.) anymore, it will most likely be discontinued along with many many other add-ons on AMO."

viewtopic.php?p=14294723#p14294723

https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2015/08 ... x-add-ons/
Win7 Pro SP1 64 Bit
Comodo Internet Security
Pale Moon 33.1.0, Epyrus Mail 2.1.2, Firefox 115.10.0esr, Thunderbird 115.10.1, and SeaMonkey 2.53.18.2
User avatar
MarkRH
Posts: 1361
Joined: September 12th, 2007, 2:30 am
Location: Edmond, OK
Contact:

Re: unsigned extensions (again)

Post by MarkRH »

Ahhh.. well, I do have a separate beta installation so I'll know when things truly crap out for me. Right now, FF with a clean profile is like alien to me and almost unusable LOL.
Post Reply