Extension development for beta

neandr neandr at gmx.de
Mon Oct 29 10:32:26 UTC 2018


  a legacy extension (which needs a restart) can hold both manifest 
types, the install.rdf and manifest.json. And it would run with TB60.2.1 
and TB63 --> TB65. That's how I'm doing the "upgrade" of Reminderfox. 
And yes I'm faced with problems, but they have nothing to do with the 
both manifest files .. I guess.
If so it should be possible to build just one extension for TB/current 
version upto TB65.


Am 29.10.18 um 09:37 schrieb Geoff Lankow:
> We have a problem. Actually, a series of problems.
> Firstly. For an extension to run on ESR60, it must be:
>  1. an overlay extension with an install.rdf manifest, or
>  2. a bootstrapped extension with an install.rdf manifest, or
>  3. a WebExtension with a manifest.json
> C is very rare, because ESR60 supports so few of the WebExtension 
> APIs. B isn't an issue yet but will become one soon, so I'm ignoring 
> it for this conversation.
> For A to run on beta, it must have a manifest.json and /NOT/ have an 
> install.rdf manifest. (At this point it's technically a WebExtension 
> and we're just lying to the extensions back-end about what it's 
> actually doing.)
> This leads to the second problem: it's impossible to have an extension 
> that both has an install.rdf and doesn't have an install.rdf. 
> Therefore an extension developer cannot make an extension that can run 
> on both ESR60 and beta.
> (Side note: I've been trying to make a backport for ESR that can run 
> an updated legacy extension, but I'm uncomfortable with the size of 
> the changes.)
> The extension developer /could/ make a separate version of their 
> extension which is only for beta. Given the other big changes in the 
> platform, that's probably the best option anyway, but that takes us to 
> problem three: they can't host the beta version of their extension on 
> ATN, because ATN no longer has support for development channel 
> extensions. I /think/ there's an ugly workaround involving uploading 
> versions out-of-order such that the ESR version is the one displayed, 
> but I really don't think developers should have to deal with that, or 
> would bother. They could also self-host the extension but I think most 
> wouldn't want to do that.
> We're left with a bunch of not-very-nice options, as well as all the 
> other issues facing extension developers, which I think is just going 
> to put a lot of developers off altogether, and we'll lose a large 
> fraction of our extensions.
> GL
> _______________________________________________
> tb-planning mailing list
> tb-planning at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/tb-planning
gNeandr *gmx*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/tb-planning/attachments/20181029/ece2dfde/attachment.html>

More information about the tb-planning mailing list