Re: [Add-on Compatibility] was - Re: Cannot Install BetterPrivacy 1.68 in SeaMonkey 2.6.1

2012-01-23 Thread Sailfish 
My bloviated meandering follows what David E. Ross graced us with on 
1/22/2012 11:23 PM:

On 1/22/12 7:45 PM, Sailfish wrote [in part]:
You 
should bring this up to the owner's attention.




I would indeed notify the extension's developer.  However:

*  The AMO site provides no contact info.

*  The developer's site http://nc.ddns.us/extensions.html is very
confusing about reporting problems.

*  There is no real way to submit a bug report against any AMO extension.


Did you try the Forum+Support nav button on the left sidebar?

--
Sailfish - Netscape Champion
Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/
Netscape/Mozilla Tips: http://www.ufaq.org/ , http://ilias.ca/
Rare Mozilla Stuff: https://www.projectit.com/
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: [Add-on Compatibility] was - Re: Cannot Install BetterPrivacy 1.68 in SeaMonkey 2.6.1

2012-01-23 Thread David E. Ross 
On 1/23/12 12:07 AM, Sailfish wrote:
 My bloviated meandering follows what David E. Ross graced us with on 
 1/22/2012 11:23 PM:
 On 1/22/12 7:45 PM, Sailfish wrote [in part]:
 You 
 should bring this up to the owner's attention.


 I would indeed notify the extension's developer.  However:

 *  The AMO site provides no contact info.

 *  The developer's site http://nc.ddns.us/extensions.html is very
 confusing about reporting problems.

 *  There is no real way to submit a bug report against any AMO extension.

 Did you try the Forum+Support nav button on the left sidebar?
 

Yes.  For individual threads, I see the note No permission to post a
reply.  For the appropriate forum, I see the note No permission to
post new topics.

-- 

David E. Ross
http://www.rossde.com/.

Anyone who thinks government owns a monopoly on inefficient, obstructive
bureaucracy has obviously never worked for a large corporation.
© 1997 by David E. Ross
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: [Add-on Compatibility] was - Re: Cannot Install BetterPrivacy 1.68 in SeaMonkey 2.6.1

2012-01-23 Thread Sailfish 
My bloviated meandering follows what David E. Ross graced us with on 
1/23/2012 10:08 AM:

On 1/23/12 12:07 AM, Sailfish wrote:
My bloviated meandering follows what David E. Ross graced us with on 
1/22/2012 11:23 PM:

On 1/22/12 7:45 PM, Sailfish wrote [in part]:
You 
should bring this up to the owner's attention.



I would indeed notify the extension's developer.  However:

*  The AMO site provides no contact info.

*  The developer's site http://nc.ddns.us/extensions.html is very
confusing about reporting problems.

*  There is no real way to submit a bug report against any AMO extension.


Did you try the Forum+Support nav button on the left sidebar?



Yes.  For individual threads, I see the note No permission to post a
reply.  For the appropriate forum, I see the note No permission to
post new topics.

If there were recent posts from others, maybe there's a registration 
required?


--
Sailfish - Netscape Champion
Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/
Netscape/Mozilla Tips: http://www.ufaq.org/ , http://ilias.ca/
Rare Mozilla Stuff: https://www.projectit.com/
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: [Add-on Compatibility] was - Re: Cannot Install BetterPrivacy 1.68 in SeaMonkey 2.6.1

2012-01-23 Thread Jens Hatlak 

NoOp wrote:

Jens, any possiblity that the compatibility reporter can include a
box/tick that the extension works if the install.rdf is modified?


Hardly. First of all, the ACR is a Mozilla product, i.e. its main focus 
is Firefox and possibly Thunderbird. Secondly, it's not the right 
approach. The goal should be to get the add-on authors to update their 
creations. At least that's what I think and what I've been doing.



For example: with SM 2.7b4 (linux) the following are fine with a
modified install.rdf:

- Novell Moonlight 3.99.0.2.99
- Password Exporter 1.2.1


For the latter, Philip Chee provides an updated version here:
http://xsidebar.mozdev.org/modifiedmisc.html#passwordexporter


But, if the install.rdf is modifed (to say
'em:maxVersion2.8.*/em:maxVersion' and works, the compatibility
reporter denotes: Marked as compatible by developer when it actually
wasn't. But the add-on works when modified locally.


The ACR enables you to provide feedback to the add-on author, but only 
if you do not fake the compatibility information yourself. Until 
compatible-by-default add-ons were introduced (starting with SM 2.7, 
which you seem to run), the ACR allowed to install any add-on that ever 
claimed to work with SM. Now it refuses that if the add-on is not 
compatible with at least SM 2.1 (which was the release matching FF 4, 
which is also FF's cut-off version for compatible-by-default).


Now I'm not exactly sure whether the old extensions.checkCompatibility.* 
preferences still work, but I think it's worth a try. With trunk it's 
probably easiest to install the Nightly Tester Tools add-on, but I'm not 
sure whether it sets the necessary prefs for branches like the ACR did. 
Maybe the Disable Add-on Compatibility Checks add-on does the trick; 
didn't try it myself.


HTH

Jens

--
Jens Hatlak http://jens.hatlak.de/
SeaMonkey Trunk Tracker http://smtt.blogspot.com/
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: [Add-on Compatibility] was - Re: Cannot Install BetterPrivacy 1.68 in SeaMonkey 2.6.1

2012-01-23 Thread David E. Ross 
On 1/23/12 10:23 AM, Sailfish wrote:
 My bloviated meandering follows what David E. Ross graced us with on 
 1/23/2012 10:08 AM:
 On 1/23/12 12:07 AM, Sailfish wrote:
 My bloviated meandering follows what David E. Ross graced us with on 
 1/22/2012 11:23 PM:
 On 1/22/12 7:45 PM, Sailfish wrote [in part]:
 You 
 should bring this up to the owner's attention.

 I would indeed notify the extension's developer.  However:

 *  The AMO site provides no contact info.

 *  The developer's site http://nc.ddns.us/extensions.html is very
 confusing about reporting problems.

 *  There is no real way to submit a bug report against any AMO extension.

 Did you try the Forum+Support nav button on the left sidebar?


 Yes.  For individual threads, I see the note No permission to post a
 reply.  For the appropriate forum, I see the note No permission to
 post new topics.

 If there were recent posts from others, maybe there's a registration 
 required?
 

I suspect registration and login are actually required.  However, at the
top of http://nc.ddns.us/forum/, there is the statement, all in bold:
Registration is NOT required to post in user forums. with NOT
underlined.

-- 

David E. Ross
http://www.rossde.com/.

Anyone who thinks government owns a monopoly on inefficient, obstructive
bureaucracy has obviously never worked for a large corporation.
© 1997 by David E. Ross
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: [Add-on Compatibility] was - Re: Cannot Install BetterPrivacy 1.68 in SeaMonkey 2.6.1

2012-01-23 Thread David E. Ross 
On 1/23/12 4:56 PM, David E. Ross wrote:
 On 1/23/12 10:23 AM, Sailfish wrote:
 My bloviated meandering follows what David E. Ross graced us with on 
 1/23/2012 10:08 AM:
 On 1/23/12 12:07 AM, Sailfish wrote:
 My bloviated meandering follows what David E. Ross graced us with on 
 1/22/2012 11:23 PM:
 On 1/22/12 7:45 PM, Sailfish wrote [in part]:
 You 
 should bring this up to the owner's attention.

 I would indeed notify the extension's developer.  However:

 *  The AMO site provides no contact info.

 *  The developer's site http://nc.ddns.us/extensions.html is very
 confusing about reporting problems.

 *  There is no real way to submit a bug report against any AMO extension.

 Did you try the Forum+Support nav button on the left sidebar?


 Yes.  For individual threads, I see the note No permission to post a
 reply.  For the appropriate forum, I see the note No permission to
 post new topics.

 If there were recent posts from others, maybe there's a registration 
 required?

 
 I suspect registration and login are actually required.  However, at the
 top of http://nc.ddns.us/forum/, there is the statement, all in bold:
 Registration is NOT required to post in user forums. with NOT
 underlined.
 

When I went to register so that I could then login, the registration
page contained: This forum is not accepting new registrations.

-- 

David E. Ross
http://www.rossde.com/.

Anyone who thinks government owns a monopoly on inefficient, obstructive
bureaucracy has obviously never worked for a large corporation.
© 1997 by David E. Ross
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

[Add-on Compatibility] was - Re: Cannot Install BetterPrivacy 1.68 in SeaMonkey 2.6.1

2012-01-22 Thread NoOp 
On 01/22/2012 12:57 PM, Jens Hatlak wrote:
 David E. Ross wrote:
 When I try to install BetterPrivacy 1.68 in SeaMonkey 2.6.1, I get the
 following error:  BetterPrivacy could not be installed because it is
 not compatible with SeaMonkey 2.6.1.  I get this even when I attempt to
 install directly from the AMO site (not my usual practice).
 
 With the ACR installed, compatibility checks disabled or SM 2.7, you can 
 install the penultimate version of the add-on from its Version History page.
 
 By the way, selecting the link
 https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/seamonkey/addon/betterprivacy/
 redirects to
 https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/betterprivacy/.
 
 This is because AMO seems to only check the latest add-on version, which 
 is no longer declared compatible with SM (author's fault).
...

Jens, any possiblity that the compatibility reporter can include a
box/tick that the extension works if the install.rdf is modified?

For example: with SM 2.7b4 (linux) the following are fine with a
modified install.rdf:

- Novell Moonlight 3.99.0.2.99
- Password Exporter 1.2.1

But, if the install.rdf is modifed (to say
'em:maxVersion2.8.*/em:maxVersion' and works, the compatibility
reporter denotes: Marked as compatible by developer when it actually
wasn't. But the add-on works when modified locally.

Yes, I understand that it is up to the add-on developer to keep this
updated (install.rdf), and that is not the issue I am pointing out. The
issue is how to sort out compatibility when the install.rdf has been
modified locally _and_ the add-on works when modified.


___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: [Add-on Compatibility] was - Re: Cannot Install BetterPrivacy 1.68 in SeaMonkey 2.6.1

2012-01-22 Thread David E. Ross 
On 1/22/12 4:52 PM, NoOp wrote:
 On 01/22/2012 12:57 PM, Jens Hatlak wrote:
 David E. Ross wrote:
 When I try to install BetterPrivacy 1.68 in SeaMonkey 2.6.1, I get the
 following error:  BetterPrivacy could not be installed because it is
 not compatible with SeaMonkey 2.6.1.  I get this even when I attempt to
 install directly from the AMO site (not my usual practice).

 With the ACR installed, compatibility checks disabled or SM 2.7, you can 
 install the penultimate version of the add-on from its Version History page.

 By the way, selecting the link
 https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/seamonkey/addon/betterprivacy/
 redirects to
 https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/betterprivacy/.

 This is because AMO seems to only check the latest add-on version, which 
 is no longer declared compatible with SM (author's fault).
 ...
 
 Jens, any possiblity that the compatibility reporter can include a
 box/tick that the extension works if the install.rdf is modified?
 
 For example: with SM 2.7b4 (linux) the following are fine with a
 modified install.rdf:
 
 - Novell Moonlight 3.99.0.2.99
 - Password Exporter 1.2.1
 
 But, if the install.rdf is modifed (to say
 'em:maxVersion2.8.*/em:maxVersion' and works, the compatibility
 reporter denotes: Marked as compatible by developer when it actually
 wasn't. But the add-on works when modified locally.
 
 Yes, I understand that it is up to the add-on developer to keep this
 updated (install.rdf), and that is not the issue I am pointing out. The
 issue is how to sort out compatibility when the install.rdf has been
 modified locally _and_ the add-on works when modified.
 
 

Note that BetterPrivacy 1.68 as downloaded from AMO has install.rdf
containing the following:

  !--SeaMonkey--
  Description RDF:about=rdf:#$dLacB4
   em:id={92650c4d-4b8e-4d2a-b7eb-24ecf4f6b63a}
   em:minVersion=2.0a1
   em:maxVersion=2.6.*
  /

Should not this work with SeaMonkey 2.6.1?

-- 

David E. Ross
http://www.rossde.com/.

Anyone who thinks government owns a monopoly on inefficient, obstructive
bureaucracy has obviously never worked for a large corporation.
© 1997 by David E. Ross
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: [Add-on Compatibility] was - Re: Cannot Install BetterPrivacy 1.68 in SeaMonkey 2.6.1

2012-01-22 Thread NoOp 
On 01/22/2012 05:23 PM, David E. Ross wrote:
 On 1/22/12 4:52 PM, NoOp wrote:
...
 Jens, any possiblity that the compatibility reporter can include a
 box/tick that the extension works if the install.rdf is modified?
 
 For example: with SM 2.7b4 (linux) the following are fine with a
 modified install.rdf:
 
 - Novell Moonlight 3.99.0.2.99
 - Password Exporter 1.2.1
 
 But, if the install.rdf is modifed (to say
 'em:maxVersion2.8.*/em:maxVersion' and works, the compatibility
 reporter denotes: Marked as compatible by developer when it actually
 wasn't. But the add-on works when modified locally.
 
 Yes, I understand that it is up to the add-on developer to keep this
 updated (install.rdf), and that is not the issue I am pointing out. The
 issue is how to sort out compatibility when the install.rdf has been
 modified locally _and_ the add-on works when modified.
...
 
 Note that BetterPrivacy 1.68 as downloaded from AMO has install.rdf
 containing the following:
 
   !--SeaMonkey--
   Description RDF:about=rdf:#$dLacB4
em:id={92650c4d-4b8e-4d2a-b7eb-24ecf4f6b63a}
em:minVersion=2.0a1
em:maxVersion=2.6.*
   /
 
 Should not this work with SeaMonkey 2.6.1?
 

IMO yes.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: [Add-on Compatibility] was - Re: Cannot Install BetterPrivacy 1.68 in SeaMonkey 2.6.1

2012-01-22 Thread NoOp 
On 01/22/2012 05:53 PM, NoOp wrote:
 On 01/22/2012 05:23 PM, David E. Ross wrote:
 On 1/22/12 4:52 PM, NoOp wrote:
 ...
 Jens, any possiblity that the compatibility reporter can include a
 box/tick that the extension works if the install.rdf is modified?
 
 For example: with SM 2.7b4 (linux) the following are fine with a
 modified install.rdf:
 
 - Novell Moonlight 3.99.0.2.99
 - Password Exporter 1.2.1
 
 But, if the install.rdf is modifed (to say
 'em:maxVersion2.8.*/em:maxVersion' and works, the compatibility
 reporter denotes: Marked as compatible by developer when it actually
 wasn't. But the add-on works when modified locally.
 
 Yes, I understand that it is up to the add-on developer to keep this
 updated (install.rdf), and that is not the issue I am pointing out. The
 issue is how to sort out compatibility when the install.rdf has been
 modified locally _and_ the add-on works when modified.
 ...
 
 Note that BetterPrivacy 1.68 as downloaded from AMO has install.rdf
 containing the following:
 
   !--SeaMonkey--
   Description RDF:about=rdf:#$dLacB4
em:id={92650c4d-4b8e-4d2a-b7eb-24ecf4f6b63a}
em:minVersion=2.0a1
em:maxVersion=2.6.*
   /
 
 Should not this work with SeaMonkey 2.6.1?
 
 
 IMO yes.

BetterPrivacy Version History
Version 1.68 Released January 20, 2012 138.2 KB Works with Firefox 3.5 -
11.*

However when I attempt to install in 2.7b4 I see that it thinks that I
have Firefox 2.7, when in actuality I have:

Build identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120119
Firefox/10.0 SeaMonkey/2.7

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/betterprivacy/versions/?page=1#version-1.68
Add to Firefox
Not available for Firefox 2.7

So I think there is an issue with the AMO not detecting the correct
version of SeaMonkey.

However it works if I use FF:
Mozilla/5.0 (Ubuntu; X11; Linux i686; rv:9.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/9.0.1

Or:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:10.0a1) Gecko/20110929 Firefox/10.0a1





___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: [Add-on Compatibility] was - Re: Cannot Install BetterPrivacy 1.68 in SeaMonkey 2.6.1

2012-01-22 Thread Sailfish 
My bloviated meandering follows what David E. Ross graced us with on 
1/22/2012 5:23 PM:

On 1/22/12 4:52 PM, NoOp wrote:

On 01/22/2012 12:57 PM, Jens Hatlak wrote:

David E. Ross wrote:

When I try to install BetterPrivacy 1.68 in SeaMonkey 2.6.1, I get the
following error:  BetterPrivacy could not be installed because it is
not compatible with SeaMonkey 2.6.1.  I get this even when I attempt to
install directly from the AMO site (not my usual practice).
With the ACR installed, compatibility checks disabled or SM 2.7, you can 
install the penultimate version of the add-on from its Version History page.



By the way, selecting the link
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/seamonkey/addon/betterprivacy/
redirects to
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/betterprivacy/.
This is because AMO seems to only check the latest add-on version, which 
is no longer declared compatible with SM (author's fault).

...

Jens, any possiblity that the compatibility reporter can include a
box/tick that the extension works if the install.rdf is modified?

For example: with SM 2.7b4 (linux) the following are fine with a
modified install.rdf:

- Novell Moonlight 3.99.0.2.99
- Password Exporter 1.2.1

But, if the install.rdf is modifed (to say
'em:maxVersion2.8.*/em:maxVersion' and works, the compatibility
reporter denotes: Marked as compatible by developer when it actually
wasn't. But the add-on works when modified locally.

Yes, I understand that it is up to the add-on developer to keep this
updated (install.rdf), and that is not the issue I am pointing out. The
issue is how to sort out compatibility when the install.rdf has been
modified locally _and_ the add-on works when modified.




Note that BetterPrivacy 1.68 as downloaded from AMO has install.rdf
containing the following:

  !--SeaMonkey--
  Description RDF:about=rdf:#$dLacB4
   em:id={92650c4d-4b8e-4d2a-b7eb-24ecf4f6b63a}
   em:minVersion=2.0a1
   em:maxVersion=2.6.*
  /

Should not this work with SeaMonkey 2.6.1?

That's in the old RDF format so that may be an issue? The newer format 
looks something like:


!-- SeaMonkey --

em:targetApplication
  Description
em:id{92650c4d-4b8e-4d2a-b7eb-24ecf4f6b63a}/em:id
em:minVersion1.0/em:minVersion
em:maxVersion2.6.*/em:maxVersion
  /Description
/em:targetApplication

--
Sailfish - Netscape Champion
Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/
Netscape/Mozilla Tips: http://www.ufaq.org/ , http://ilias.ca/
Rare Mozilla Stuff: https://www.projectit.com/
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: [Add-on Compatibility] was - Re: Cannot Install BetterPrivacy 1.68 in SeaMonkey 2.6.1

2012-01-22 Thread David E. Ross 
On 1/22/12 6:08 PM, NoOp wrote:
 On 01/22/2012 05:53 PM, NoOp wrote:
 On 01/22/2012 05:23 PM, David E. Ross wrote:
 On 1/22/12 4:52 PM, NoOp wrote:
 ...
 Jens, any possiblity that the compatibility reporter can include a
 box/tick that the extension works if the install.rdf is modified?

 For example: with SM 2.7b4 (linux) the following are fine with a
 modified install.rdf:

 - Novell Moonlight 3.99.0.2.99
 - Password Exporter 1.2.1

 But, if the install.rdf is modifed (to say
 'em:maxVersion2.8.*/em:maxVersion' and works, the compatibility
 reporter denotes: Marked as compatible by developer when it actually
 wasn't. But the add-on works when modified locally.

 Yes, I understand that it is up to the add-on developer to keep this
 updated (install.rdf), and that is not the issue I am pointing out. The
 issue is how to sort out compatibility when the install.rdf has been
 modified locally _and_ the add-on works when modified.
 ...

 Note that BetterPrivacy 1.68 as downloaded from AMO has install.rdf
 containing the following:

   !--SeaMonkey--
   Description RDF:about=rdf:#$dLacB4
em:id={92650c4d-4b8e-4d2a-b7eb-24ecf4f6b63a}
em:minVersion=2.0a1
em:maxVersion=2.6.*
   /

 Should not this work with SeaMonkey 2.6.1?


 IMO yes.
 
 BetterPrivacy Version History
 Version 1.68 Released January 20, 2012 138.2 KB Works with Firefox 3.5 -
 11.*
 
 However when I attempt to install in 2.7b4 I see that it thinks that I
 have Firefox 2.7, when in actuality I have:
 
 Build identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120119
 Firefox/10.0 SeaMonkey/2.7
 
 https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/betterprivacy/versions/?page=1#version-1.68
 Add to Firefox
 Not available for Firefox 2.7
 
 So I think there is an issue with the AMO not detecting the correct
 version of SeaMonkey.
 
 However it works if I use FF:
 Mozilla/5.0 (Ubuntu; X11; Linux i686; rv:9.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/9.0.1
 
 Or:
 Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:10.0a1) Gecko/20110929 Firefox/10.0a1

I've disabled Advertise Firefox compatibility, so my UA string is:

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:9.0.1) Gecko/20111221 SeaMonkey/2.6.1

This should satisfy
em:maxVersion=2.6.*

-- 

David E. Ross
http://www.rossde.com/.

Anyone who thinks government owns a monopoly on inefficient, obstructive
bureaucracy has obviously never worked for a large corporation.
© 1997 by David E. Ross
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: [Add-on Compatibility] was - Re: Cannot Install BetterPrivacy 1.68 in SeaMonkey 2.6.1

2012-01-22 Thread David E. Ross 
On 1/22/12 7:07 PM, Sailfish wrote:
 My bloviated meandering follows what David E. Ross graced us with on 
 1/22/2012 5:23 PM:
 On 1/22/12 4:52 PM, NoOp wrote:
 On 01/22/2012 12:57 PM, Jens Hatlak wrote:
 David E. Ross wrote:
 When I try to install BetterPrivacy 1.68 in SeaMonkey 2.6.1, I get the
 following error:  BetterPrivacy could not be installed because it is
 not compatible with SeaMonkey 2.6.1.  I get this even when I attempt to
 install directly from the AMO site (not my usual practice).
 With the ACR installed, compatibility checks disabled or SM 2.7, you can 
 install the penultimate version of the add-on from its Version History 
 page.

 By the way, selecting the link
 https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/seamonkey/addon/betterprivacy/
 redirects to
 https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/betterprivacy/.
 This is because AMO seems to only check the latest add-on version, which 
 is no longer declared compatible with SM (author's fault).
 ...

 Jens, any possiblity that the compatibility reporter can include a
 box/tick that the extension works if the install.rdf is modified?

 For example: with SM 2.7b4 (linux) the following are fine with a
 modified install.rdf:

 - Novell Moonlight 3.99.0.2.99
 - Password Exporter 1.2.1

 But, if the install.rdf is modifed (to say
 'em:maxVersion2.8.*/em:maxVersion' and works, the compatibility
 reporter denotes: Marked as compatible by developer when it actually
 wasn't. But the add-on works when modified locally.

 Yes, I understand that it is up to the add-on developer to keep this
 updated (install.rdf), and that is not the issue I am pointing out. The
 issue is how to sort out compatibility when the install.rdf has been
 modified locally _and_ the add-on works when modified.



 Note that BetterPrivacy 1.68 as downloaded from AMO has install.rdf
 containing the following:

   !--SeaMonkey--
   Description RDF:about=rdf:#$dLacB4
em:id={92650c4d-4b8e-4d2a-b7eb-24ecf4f6b63a}
em:minVersion=2.0a1
em:maxVersion=2.6.*
   /

 Should not this work with SeaMonkey 2.6.1?

 That's in the old RDF format so that may be an issue? The newer format 
 looks something like:
 
  !-- SeaMonkey --
 
  em:targetApplication
Description
  em:id{92650c4d-4b8e-4d2a-b7eb-24ecf4f6b63a}/em:id
  em:minVersion1.0/em:minVersion
  em:maxVersion2.6.*/em:maxVersion
/Description
  /em:targetApplication
 

I tried editing install.rdf to look that way.  It did not help.  And
yes, I know I edited correctly.  I've successfully edited install.rdf
files in quite a few other extensions.

-- 

David E. Ross
http://www.rossde.com/.

Anyone who thinks government owns a monopoly on inefficient, obstructive
bureaucracy has obviously never worked for a large corporation.
© 1997 by David E. Ross
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: [Add-on Compatibility] was - Re: Cannot Install BetterPrivacy 1.68 in SeaMonkey 2.6.1

2012-01-22 Thread Sailfish 
My bloviated meandering follows what David E. Ross graced us with on 
1/22/2012 7:17 PM:


[snip /]


I tried editing install.rdf to look that way.  It did not help.  And
yes, I know I edited correctly.  I've successfully edited install.rdf
files in quite a few other extensions.

At minimum, it's something in his install.rdf file. I converted it to 
the new format and it at least install okay, see:



?xml version=1.0?

RDF xmlns=http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#;
 xmlns:em=http://www.mozilla.org/2004/em-rdf#;

  Description about=urn:mozilla:install-manifest
em:id{d40f5e7b-d2cf-4856-b441-cc613eeffbe3}/em:id
em:version1.68/em:version

!-- Firefox --

em:targetApplication
  Description
em:id{ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}/em:id
em:minVersion3.5/em:minVersion
em:maxVersion11.*/em:maxVersion
  /Description
/em:targetApplication

!-- SeaMonkey --

em:targetApplication
  Description
em:id{92650c4d-4b8e-4d2a-b7eb-24ecf4f6b63a}/em:id
em:minVersion2.0a1/em:minVersion
em:maxVersion2.6.*/em:maxVersion
  /Description
/em:targetApplication

!-- Front End MetaData --
em:nameBetterPrivacy/em:name
em:type2/em:type
em:descriptionquot;Super-Cookie Safeguardquot;/em:description
em:creatorGreg Yardley (version 0.2) www.yardley.ca/em:creator
em:contributorIcon: Lint Hasenpfeffer (concept by Evan Eckard), 
Code improvements: Ximin Luo, Locales: DE by Endor and others by 
BabelZilla team/em:contributor

em:homepageURLhttp://nc.ddns.us/extensions.html/em:homepageURL
em:developerhttp://nc.ddns.us/extensions.html/em:developer

em:optionsURLchrome://bprivacy/content/bprivacyopt.xul/em:optionsURL

em:aboutURLhttp://www.projectit.com/inspectorwidget-about.xul/em:aboutURL
em:iconURLchrome://bprivacy/content/pie.png/em:iconURL

  /Description
/RDF


I didn't try it on Facebook so there may be other issues with it. You 
should bring this up to the owner's attention.


--
Sailfish - Netscape Champion
Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/
Netscape/Mozilla Tips: http://www.ufaq.org/ , http://ilias.ca/
Rare Mozilla Stuff: https://www.projectit.com/
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: [Add-on Compatibility] was - Re: Cannot Install BetterPrivacy 1.68 in SeaMonkey 2.6.1

2012-01-22 Thread Philip Chee 
On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 19:07:39 -0800, Sailfish wrote:
 My bloviated meandering follows what David E. Ross graced us with on 
 1/22/2012 5:23 PM:
 On 1/22/12 4:52 PM, NoOp wrote:
 On 01/22/2012 12:57 PM, Jens Hatlak wrote:
 David E. Ross wrote:
 When I try to install BetterPrivacy 1.68 in SeaMonkey 2.6.1, I get the
 following error:  BetterPrivacy could not be installed because it is
 not compatible with SeaMonkey 2.6.1.  I get this even when I attempt to
 install directly from the AMO site (not my usual practice).
 With the ACR installed, compatibility checks disabled or SM 2.7, you can 
 install the penultimate version of the add-on from its Version History 
 page.

 By the way, selecting the link
 https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/seamonkey/addon/betterprivacy/
 redirects to
 https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/betterprivacy/.
 This is because AMO seems to only check the latest add-on version, which 
 is no longer declared compatible with SM (author's fault).
 ...

 Jens, any possiblity that the compatibility reporter can include a
 box/tick that the extension works if the install.rdf is modified?

 For example: with SM 2.7b4 (linux) the following are fine with a
 modified install.rdf:

 - Novell Moonlight 3.99.0.2.99
 - Password Exporter 1.2.1

 But, if the install.rdf is modifed (to say
 'em:maxVersion2.8.*/em:maxVersion' and works, the compatibility
 reporter denotes: Marked as compatible by developer when it actually
 wasn't. But the add-on works when modified locally.

 Yes, I understand that it is up to the add-on developer to keep this
 updated (install.rdf), and that is not the issue I am pointing out. The
 issue is how to sort out compatibility when the install.rdf has been
 modified locally _and_ the add-on works when modified.


 
 Note that BetterPrivacy 1.68 as downloaded from AMO has install.rdf
 containing the following:
 
   !--SeaMonkey--
   Description RDF:about=rdf:#$dLacB4
em:id={92650c4d-4b8e-4d2a-b7eb-24ecf4f6b63a}
em:minVersion=2.0a1
em:maxVersion=2.6.*
   /
 
 Should not this work with SeaMonkey 2.6.1?
 
 That's in the old RDF format so that may be an issue? The newer format 
 looks something like:
 
  !-- SeaMonkey --
 
  em:targetApplication
Description
  em:id{92650c4d-4b8e-4d2a-b7eb-24ecf4f6b63a}/em:id
  em:minVersion1.0/em:minVersion
  em:maxVersion2.6.*/em:maxVersion
/Description
  /em:targetApplication

There is no such thing as old/new RDF format. These two are identical as
far as RDF is concerned. RDF is a directed graph. The problem is that
there are an infinite number of ways a RDF graph can be serialized out
to disk. The first version listed above is probably written out by the
Gecko RDF serializer (the code of which is old crufty). The second
version listed above was created manually by someone typing it in with a
text editor. When both versions are read into memory and de-serialized,
the internal representation in RAM is the same.

Phil

-- 
Philip Chee phi...@aleytys.pc.my, philip.c...@gmail.com
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: [Add-on Compatibility] was - Re: Cannot Install BetterPrivacy 1.68 in SeaMonkey 2.6.1

2012-01-22 Thread Sailfish 
My bloviated meandering follows what Philip Chee graced us with on 
1/22/2012 8:11 PM:


[snip /]


There is no such thing as old/new RDF format. These two are identical as
far as RDF is concerned. RDF is a directed graph. The problem is that
there are an infinite number of ways a RDF graph can be serialized out
to disk. The first version listed above is probably written out by the
Gecko RDF serializer (the code of which is old crufty). The second
version listed above was created manually by someone typing it in with a
text editor. When both versions are read into memory and de-serialized,
the internal representation in RAM is the same.

Okay, but as my last post indicates, I simply took the values from the 
BetterPrivacy crufty RDF file and added them using the new format then 
replaced the install.rdf file in the XPI file and it installed splendidly.


Dunno?

--
Sailfish - Netscape Champion
Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/
Netscape/Mozilla Tips: http://www.ufaq.org/ , http://ilias.ca/
Rare Mozilla Stuff: https://www.projectit.com/
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: [Add-on Compatibility] was - Re: Cannot Install BetterPrivacy 1.68 in SeaMonkey 2.6.1

2012-01-22 Thread David E. Ross 
On 1/22/12 7:45 PM, Sailfish wrote [in part]:
 
 You 
 should bring this up to the owner's attention.
 

I would indeed notify the extension's developer.  However:

*  The AMO site provides no contact info.

*  The developer's site http://nc.ddns.us/extensions.html is very
confusing about reporting problems.

*  There is no real way to submit a bug report against any AMO extension.

-- 

David E. Ross
http://www.rossde.com/.

Anyone who thinks government owns a monopoly on inefficient, obstructive
bureaucracy has obviously never worked for a large corporation.
© 1997 by David E. Ross
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey