I should also add that it seems that if something is not signed... Firefox will disable any update checking. (Whaaaaaaaaat!)
I only caught that message once in my testing of a compatibility release... so I am still not sure of what criteria needs to pass... but I think it was upgrade checking becoming disabled without a signed xpi. Not an issue on downloads from amo. On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 12:53 PM, John Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Real quick... off the top of my head... > > "Get more Addons"... navigates there. > > It has no scarry scarry messages about bad extensions... like mozdev gets... > > ie it is whitelisted by default... mozdev is not. > It allows xpi installs without any signature hassles. > (Like nobody has ever installed VIA drivers before and > quickly waved off any warning about signed drivers...) > > So they are pretty much coopting distribution by user experience. > What's hard to do elsewhere... is easy at amo. > > When I think of Firefox's main claim to fame being "Tabbed Browsing", and THAT > having been developed at mozdev... by HJ(I wonder often how HJ is > doing?) I wanna > puke on the current mozilla crew. (A read of this bug... solves that notion > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=324227 roflmao) > > John > > > On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Godmar Back <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Related to the AMO approval thread: >> >> Could somebody summarize what the advantages of hosting on AMO are as >> compared to hosting at mozdev? >> >> - Godmar >> _______________________________________________ >> Project_owners mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners >> > _______________________________________________ Project_owners mailing list [email protected] https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
