4 ms·
I've written Firefox extensions, and I gave up on the official Mozilla extension store. It is far easier to host the extension xpi yourself and provide the upda
by Afforess 12y ago
I've written Firefox extensions, and I gave up on the official Mozilla extension store. It is far easier to host the extension xpi yourself and provide the update configuration in your extension manifest for your own webserver. This lets you auto-update your extension yourself. The only downside is you have to learn how to sign the extension with either the command line or an eccentric GUI program on windows.
All of the problems detailed in this blog are true. But I feel like the author missed one thing that bugs me. Whenever you install a Firefox addon, you might notice that little text saying "author not verified". Why is that? Because the verification process for authorship is above and beyond the normal extension process and insane.
Author signing process: https://www.mozdevgroup.com/docs/pete/Signing-an-XPI.html https://www.mozdevgroup.com/docs/pete/Signing-an-XPI.html
Automatic Firefox extension updates (without Moz store): http://www.borngeek.com/firefox/automatic-firefox-extension-updates/ http://www.borngeek.com/firefox/automatic-firefox-extension-...
- Tloewald 12y agoI guess the writer hasn't managed to get to the point of being frustrated by that yet :-)
- pbhjpbhj 12y agoMoving OT a little - it seems that signing things should be a [more] central part of all major OS nowadays. Our OS should be signing the docs we send for us, signing our emails for us, signing pics we send to family so they can see they haven't had any changes made in transit, etc., etc.. I can see problems with peoples systems being hacked and made to sign stuff, but surely having the signing system in the first place leads to enough gains overall - provided it can be made simple, clear and useful for the common user. /uninformed rant