GUID for Mozilla 1.x

[alanjstr]

<a href="http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=246891">Bug 246891</a>
86c18b42-e466-45a9-ae7a-9b95ba6f5640

This is NOT required by Mozilla for installing an extension. I ask that if you wish to have your extension listed at update.mozilla.org, and it is mozilla 1.x compatible, you include a section with the GUID above. This will eventually allow us to not have to manually pick Mozilla 1.x when adding/updating an extension (because I usually forget to set that).

[TheOneKEA]

Will it matter to the Goodger EM applications currently available (namely, Fx 0.9.2 and Tb 0.7.2) if an <em:targetApplication> stanza is included in our install.rdf files?

[alanjstr]

Will the other applications care if you have this extra section in install.rdf? Nope. Not as long as you still have the appropriate stuff for FX and TB.

[freakyfreak]

Be careful about where you put the GUID for Mozilla. When testing my new extension I found that if the Mozilla GUID is at the top of the list FireFox will use the install.js instead of install.rdf. Thus instead of using the extension system the package gets registered in the chrome and cant be uninstalled through the Extension Manager.

Finally after some messing around with testing it in the third place after the TB entry it started to work. Had some problems inbetween that I thought were related to this but were not. I was modifying a Signed Extension with zip instead of resigning the new install.rdf. (yes signing xpi files is possible, and <a href="http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=248751">coming soon in the next signtool!</a>). I was getting an undocumented error in the install.log "Install **FAILED** with error -260". After going through the <a href="http://lxr.mozilla.org/aviarybranch/source/xpinstall/src/nsInstall.h">XPInstall code</a> I found it was "INVALID_SIGNATURE".

Here's my current targetApplication information in install.rdf that is working just fine on all three programs.

Code: Select all

<em:targetApplication>
      <Description>
        <em:id>{ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}</em:id>
        <em:minVersion>0.8</em:minVersion>
        <em:maxVersion>0.9+</em:maxVersion>
      </Description>
    </em:targetApplication>
   
<em:targetApplication>
      <Description>
        <em:id>{3550f703-e582-4d05-9a08-453d09bdfdc6}</em:id>
        <em:minVersion>0.7</em:minVersion>
        <em:maxVersion>0.7+</em:maxVersion>
      </Description>
    </em:targetApplication>

<em:targetApplication>
      <Description>
        <em:id>{86c18b42-e466-45a9-ae7a-9b95ba6f5640}</em:id>
      <em:minVersion>1.0</em:minVersion>
        <em:maxVersion>1.7+</em:maxVersion>
      </Description>
</em:targetApplication>


Can anyone else confirm this problem? I've been able to repeat it over and over again with my extension.

[alanjstr]

If you are able to reproduce this, please file a bug and post the number back here. I see no reason for the order of em:targetApplication's to matter. As far as Firefox is concerned, it only should be looking for its own. It would say "not firefox, ignore", right?

[freakyfreak]

Ok, I was able to reproduce it. If the Mozilla GUID is passed first without a min or max version in there FireFox will use the install.js even though there is a perfectly good entry for FireFox after it. I remembered that was the way I had mine to begin with since it seemed thats all you needed to pick it up as a Mozilla extension. So I guess this isn't too big of a bug but still FireFox shouldn't care about that entry at all.

I used the chromedit extension to do this set of testing (to see if it wasn't just my extension).

Code: Select all

<em:targetApplication>
      <Description>
        <em:id>{86c18b42-e466-45a9-ae7a-9b95ba6f5640}</em:id>
      </Description>
</em:targetApplication>

<em:targetApplication>
      <Description>
        <em:id>{ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}</em:id>
        <em:minVersion>0.7+</em:minVersion>
        <em:maxVersion>0.9</em:maxVersion>
      </Description>
    </em:targetApplication>

    <em:targetApplication>
      <Description>
        <em:id>{3550f703-e582-4d05-9a08-453d09bdfdc6}</em:id>
        <em:minVersion>0.5+</em:minVersion>
        <em:maxVersion>0.7</em:maxVersion>
      </Description>
    </em:targetApplication>


I'll file a bug report in later today. Gotta punch back in from lunch now...

[Moonwolf]

According to this, <em:minVersion> and <em:maxVersion> are required, so it isn't a bug, it's a broken install.rdf.

[asqueella]

The new community project that will continue development of Mozilla Suite has this GUID:
92650c4d-4b8e-4d2a-b7eb-24ecf4f6b63a.

bug requesting adding it to UMO
Robert Kaiser's newsgroup post.

[alanjstr]

These can now be found in the wiki. Unstickying.