Hello,
On Thu, Dec 28 2017, Ximin Luo wrote:
> Please let me know how this fits with your plans, and if there are no
> objections I'll do an upload to Debian unstable so packages can start
> using it.
Thank you for working on this.
--
Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Sebastian Noack:
> [..] the only thing that install-xpi seems to do is creating symlinks in
> /usr/share/mozilla/extensions/ based on the supported applications listed
> in install.rdf. But WebExtensions should not have an install.rdf, and
> support exactly one Gecko application (i.e. Firefox). So
Yao Wei:
> Hi,
>
> There are some problems for us to package Debian packages for
> WebExtensions that can support Firefox and Chromium using the same
> codebase. I do come up with my idea, but I still need a conclusion to
> prepare a package:
>
> 1. Should we use different prefix for the
Hi,
There are some problems for us to package Debian packages for
WebExtensions that can support Firefox and Chromium using the same
codebase. I do come up with my idea, but I still need a conclusion to
prepare a package:
1. Should we use different prefix for the WebExtensions packages that
Dear Sebastian,
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 02:29:35PM +0200, Sebastian Noack wrote:
> as you might know, Firefox is moving away from traditional Gecko
> extensions, towards WebExtensions which are essentially the same as
> Chrome extensions.
Right. We need to update our tools, but the work hasn't
Hi everyone,
as you might know, Firefox is moving away from traditional Gecko
extensions, towards WebExtensions which are essentially the same as
Chrome extensions.
WebExtensions don't need an install.rdf manifest. In fact the
documentation indicates that is has been deprecated as part of legacy
