I've just filed and posted a fix to bug 1478516 <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1478516> about the "could not be verified for use" warning. Right now, bootstrapped extensions "just work". This could change. I would consider any documentation about non-webextension extensions to be potentially wrong at this point, especially with respect to Thunderbird. GL On 26/07/18 07:08, Onno Ekker wrote: > Hi Philipp, > > Thanks for your answers! Some more question below. > > On 7/25/2018 8:59 PM, Philipp Kewisch wrote: >>> On 25. Jul 2018, at 8:40 PM, Onno Ekker <o.e.ekker@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I didn't see any reply to my queries... >>> >>> Using the latest daily I still see this warning on all installed >>> add-ons, even on Lightning: Lightning could not be verified for use in >>> Daily. Proceed with caution. I'll repeat my previous questions, in order >>> to ease replying to this message: >>> * Is this a known issue? >>> * Is it because the add-on isn't signed? >>> * Will the add-ons on atn be signed by Thunderbird? >>> * Do add-on authors need to sign their own add-on? >> Signing is not being considered for Thunderbird at the moment. > Do you know why the warning is displayed? It is because the add-on isn't > signed or is there another cause? > > >>> I have added a manifest.json file to my bootstrapped add-on with >>> "legacy": true and I don't see any errors, but the add-on doesn't do >>> anything. The debug statements from my bootstrap.json don't display >>> anything on the console. * Should this work? >> legacy: true works with legacy add-ons, not bootstrapped add-ons. We can consider adding support for these as well. > Darn... I converted my (simple) add-on to a bootstrapped add-on as a > first step to probably make it a webextension in the future. When you > read Bootstrapped extensions on mdn, you see that bootstrapped add-ons > are also considered legacy, at least for Firefox... Too bad it doesn't > work then. > > https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Archive/Add-ons/Bootstrapped_extensions: > Add-ons using the techniques described in this document are considered a > legacy technology in Firefox. > >>> Also it seems that addons.thunderbird.net still returns an RDF-document >>> on an update ping, because I get a warning for an installed add-on, that >>> that format won't be supported for long anymore. >>> * Is this intentional? >>> * Maybe to help people using old, unsupported versions of Thunderbird to >>> upgrade their add-ons?? >> This feature may not have been picked up from upstream. >>> Onno >>> >>>> On 7/17/2018 9:25 PM, Onno Ekker wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I get a warning on all add-ons in TB62, that they cannot be verified >>>> by Daily. I get this even on language packs. It is possible to enable >>>> the add-on. >>>> >>>> I assume this is, because the add-ons on addons.thunderbird.net aren't >>>> signed, but I'm not sure of this. >>>> >>>> Is this a known issue? Is it indeed because of the signature? Will the >>>> add-ons be signed by Thunderbird? Do add-on authors need to sign their >>>> own add-on? >>>> >>>> Onno >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 7/17/2018 8:26 PM, Jörg Knobloch wrote: >>>>> First draft: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Thunderbird/Add-ons_Guide_62 >>>>> >>>>> Jörg. >>>>> > > > _______________________________________________ > Maildev mailing list > Maildev@lists.thunderbird.net > http://lists.thunderbird.net/mailman/listinfo/maildev_lists.thunderbird.net

Oh I may be wrong, I had the impression that bootstrapped add-ons support was already removed. I recall it being something around 63. Maybe it was 65 though. Philipp > On 26. Jul 2018, at 1:43 AM, Geoff Lankow <geoff@registrationform.co.nz> wrote: > > I've just filed and posted a fix to bug 1478516 about the "could not be verified for use" warning. > > Right now, bootstrapped extensions "just work". This could change. I would consider any documentation about non-webextension extensions to be potentially wrong at this point, especially with respect to Thunderbird. > GL > >> On 26/07/18 07:08, Onno Ekker wrote: >> Hi Philipp, >> >> Thanks for your answers! Some more question below. >> >> On 7/25/2018 8:59 PM, Philipp Kewisch wrote: >>>> On 25. Jul 2018, at 8:40 PM, Onno Ekker <o.e.ekker@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> I didn't see any reply to my queries... >>>> >>>> Using the latest daily I still see this warning on all installed >>>> add-ons, even on Lightning: Lightning could not be verified for use in >>>> Daily. Proceed with caution. I'll repeat my previous questions, in order >>>> to ease replying to this message: >>>> * Is this a known issue? >>>> * Is it because the add-on isn't signed? >>>> * Will the add-ons on atn be signed by Thunderbird? >>>> * Do add-on authors need to sign their own add-on? >>> Signing is not being considered for Thunderbird at the moment. >> Do you know why the warning is displayed? It is because the add-on isn't >> signed or is there another cause? >> >> >>>> I have added a manifest.json file to my bootstrapped add-on with >>>> "legacy": true and I don't see any errors, but the add-on doesn't do >>>> anything. The debug statements from my bootstrap.json don't display >>>> anything on the console. * Should this work? >>> legacy: true works with legacy add-ons, not bootstrapped add-ons. We can consider adding support for these as well. >> Darn... I converted my (simple) add-on to a bootstrapped add-on as a >> first step to probably make it a webextension in the future. When you >> read Bootstrapped extensions on mdn, you see that bootstrapped add-ons >> are also considered legacy, at least for Firefox... Too bad it doesn't >> work then. >> >> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Archive/Add-ons/Bootstrapped_extensions: >> Add-ons using the techniques described in this document are considered a >> legacy technology in Firefox. >> >>>> Also it seems that addons.thunderbird.net still returns an RDF-document >>>> on an update ping, because I get a warning for an installed add-on, that >>>> that format won't be supported for long anymore. >>>> * Is this intentional? >>>> * Maybe to help people using old, unsupported versions of Thunderbird to >>>> upgrade their add-ons?? >>> This feature may not have been picked up from upstream. >>>> Onno >>>> >>>>>> On 7/17/2018 9:25 PM, Onno Ekker wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I get a warning on all add-ons in TB62, that they cannot be verified >>>>>> by Daily. I get this even on language packs. It is possible to enable >>>>>> the add-on. >>>>>> >>>>>> I assume this is, because the add-ons on addons.thunderbird.net aren't >>>>>> signed, but I'm not sure of this. >>>>>> >>>>>> Is this a known issue? Is it indeed because of the signature? Will the >>>>>> add-ons be signed by Thunderbird? Do add-on authors need to sign their >>>>>> own add-on? >>>>>> >>>>>> Onno >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 7/17/2018 8:26 PM, Jörg Knobloch wrote: >>>>>> First draft: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Thunderbird/Add-ons_Guide_62 >>>>>> >>>>>> Jörg. >>>>>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Maildev mailing list >> Maildev@lists.thunderbird.net >> http://lists.thunderbird.net/mailman/listinfo/maildev_lists.thunderbird.net > _______________________________________________ > Maildev mailing list > Maildev@lists.thunderbird.net > http://lists.thunderbird.net/mailman/listinfo/maildev_lists.thunderbird.net

On 26/07/2018 08:02, Philipp Kewisch wrote: > Oh I may be wrong, I had the impression that bootstrapped add-ons > support was already removed. I recall it being something around 63. > Maybe it was 65 though. Read the fine documentation ;-) - https://wiki.mozilla.org/Thunderbird/Add-ons_Guide_62, particularly the link under "Further reading". Jörg.