Interviewed by CNN on 16/07/2011 00:30, JohnQPublic told the world: > I use the Flashblock add-on in Firefox which comes up OK when I search for > "Flashblock" with the Firefox Add-ons Manager, along with 23 other related > add-ons. When I try the same search in SeaMonkey2.2, only one add-on is > found, NoScript, which is related but not what I want. I had to do a google > search to locate the Flashblock website, discover thereby that a SeaMonkey > version is available, and download it directly from there: > http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ > The latest versions of Flashblock for Firefox and SeaMonkey were released a > week ago on July 8, 2011. > > Another add-on which I use in Firefox is Titlebar Tweaks Plus: > https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/titlebar-tweaks-plus/ > This comes up along with 36 other related add-ons if I search for "Titlebar" > with the Firefox Add-ons Manager, but SeaMonkey only finds 3 related > add-ons. I also tried a google search and apparently a SeaMonkey version of > this add-on is not available. > > Some relevant questions come to mind: > > -Did former versions of SeaMonkey search better, or is this a bug in > SeaMonkey2.2? > > -Are a lot fewer add-ons available for SeaMonkey compared to Firefox? > > -Are the add-on developers not registering their add-ons properly so they'll > be found with SeaMonkey searches? Or what? > > -Is there any way to test/try a Firefox compatible add-on in SeaMonkey if a > SeaMonkey version is not officially available (such as my Titlebar Tweaks > Plus example above)?
I think this is not so much a problem with the Seamonkey Add-on search, but it's just that many, many add-ons are not listed as compatible with Seamonkey in the first place. Seamonkey Add-on Search will only list add-ons tagged as Seamonkey-compatible. The reason a given add-on is not listed as such? I don't know for sure, there might be several reasons. Perhaps the developer just wasn't interested in making it Seamonkey-compatible. Or perhaps the developer did check for Seamonkey compatibility, but didn't knew or didn't remember how to submit it so it would be listed for Seamonkey too. Or perhaps it's a separate product (like in the case of Flashblock) and it's still undergoing the A.M.O. review process. Keep in mind that before Seamonkey 2, there were significant differences in making an extension for Firefox/Thunderbird and for Seamonkey. Many developers never bothered with Seamonkey back then, because it looked like too much work for too little reward. Even with SM 2, there were still a few important differences (bookmarks system, for instance) -- and many developers kept ignoring SM. Nowadays, in the post-2.1 era, Seamonkey is very similar feature-wise to Firefox and Thunderbird, so it should be easier to make an extension SM-compatible -- but many still aren't. Convincing developers to support SM is a long-term project. -- MCBastos This message has been protected with the 2ROT13 algorithm. Unauthorized use will be prosecuted under the DMCA. -=-=- ... Sent from my wrist radio. *Added by TagZilla 0.066.2 running on Seamonkey 2.1 * Get it at http://xsidebar.mozdev.org/modifiedmailnews.html#tagzilla _______________________________________________ support-seamonkey mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
