Richmond wrote:
NFN Smith wrote:
* NoScript 5.1.9
I am curious to know why it is necessary to use 5.1.9 and not the latest
version, given what it says on the noscript website "You can still
download NoScript "Classic" (5.1.9) (SHA256) for Palemoon, Seamonkey,
Waterfox and possibly other "vintage" (pre-Gecko 57) Firefox forks here:
we'll do our best to provide security fixes as long as supporting
browser still guarantee their own security updates. "
So SM is based on FF 60, that is not pre-gecko 57 is it? unless the
versions of ff and gecko are not the same.
Perhaps it is just validation in the addon installation process which
needs changing?
Probably not. I *think* I can explain this correctly, and hopefully, I
don't need FRG to step in and correct me.
What's going on is the the structuring for how extensions are handled.
Up to Firefox 57, that was all XUL. At FF 57, XUL was dropped, and for
later versions, it's all WebExtensions, a completely different API and
coding structure. This is one of the reasons that some number of
extensions have died, because there are some number of functions that
XUL supported that WebExtensions do not.
With NoScript, 5.1.9 was the last XUL-based version. It will not run on
Firefox 57 or later. Newer versions of NoScript are WebExtension and
will not run on browsers that don't support WebExtensions.
Predominantly, those would be the various Firefox forks, including
Seamonkey, Palemoon and Waterfox.
With Seamonkey, I believe that 2.53.1 is based on Firefox 56 (rather
than 50.9esr) . For 2.57, I believe that it's based on Firefox 60esr,
and my understanding is that 2.57 will support both WebExtensions and
XUL, in the way that Thunderbird does, I know that with Thunderbird,
when TB 60 was released, XUL extensions had to be adjusted to allow for
explicit support of 60 or higher, and extensions that were not adjusted
were no longer usable. My impression is that for some, it was simply a
matter of adjusting the .XPI to allow TB 60, but for others, I'm aware
that there were more substantial coding revisions that were required.
As noted previously, I have a virtual machine that has a beta of 2.53.2
installed, and I've been tracking 2.53 installs to watch for near-future
changes, including handling of extensions. I don't know how many more
2.53 releases that we'll see before 2.57 is released, but it sounds like
that it may be worth starting to do more serious tracking on 2.57,
before too long.
Reference sources:
1) Notes from Seamonkey devs Status Meetings, at
https://wiki.mozilla.org/SeaMonkey/StatusMeetings . They typically meet
twice a month, and meetings are announced in the
mozilla.dev.apps.seamonkey newsgroup. I've found these notes to be
useful for knowing where things stand with development.
2) Downloads for developmental copies of Seamonkey:
- 2.53.x: http://www.wg9s.com/comm-253/
- 2.57: http://www.wg9s.com/comm-257/
I don't run these against my primary working profile (and in fact, as I
write this, I'm still running 2.49.5, but plan to upgrade today), and
it's nice to have the luxury of virtual machines for testing. But it
does definitely help me to be able to see what's coming, and what the
current status is.
Smith
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
