MozillaZine

Talk:Updating add-ons

From MozillaZine Knowledge Base

The first section of this article states that you can configure Firefox and Thunderbird to update your extensions and themes automatically. as part of the Software Update feature. However, the Software Update article says that the mechanism does not update extensions and themes for Fx and Tb 1.5. Which is correct? And if extensions and themes have their own update managers in 1.5, how does the user interact with them? Is there an option for automatic extension update, or do you have to use the the Extension Manager's Update button? --Mozcerize 04:01, 27 November 2005 (PST)

Is there some reason the Mr Tech local install extension is omitted from the list of ways to bypass version checks? It seems pretty popular. The link for the Nightly Tester Tools extension points you to a sandbox, which most users can't access. The Thunderbird version of nightly tester tools lite doesn't work with 2.0, though the full version of nightly tester tools at the authors web site does. I thought I'd ask before editing anything. Tanstaafl 10:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Tech Local Install barfs a million other menu items everywhere. I don't really understand why we're giving the "bump the appversion" instructions anyway when most people will be served by simply flipping the compatibility check pref.--Np 16:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I updated the article to include flipping the compatibility check preference. I kept the "bump the appversion" method and stated "This is more work but avoids the risk of other extensions breaking your application if they truly were incompatible.". I dislike the Mr. Tech extension too, but added it anyways since it is popular. Tanstaafl 19:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I actually think now we should remove the manual way of making certain extensions compatible (editing install.rdf) and suggest using the extension(s) instead. The manual steps are just too complicated for anyone who wouldn't already know how to do it.--Np 20:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, sometimes its the right solution. I've also run into a few people who absolutely refuse to disable compatibility checking, they insist they need that to protect the users they support. We shouldn't censor articles to remove complicated methods that some advanced users will find useful, its not a zero sum game. I suspect moving the "bump the appversion" section to the end of the article is sufficient. It is already labeled as a advanced method. However, if you feel strongly that still causes a problem than I suggest moving it to its own article, and linking to it. Tanstaafl 21:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I didn't think of it from an administrator's perspective. I may split that info off.--Np 23:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've split it off. To be clear, I didn't think anyone would find this method useful because of the available extensions.--Np 23:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Contents

Extensions vs. add-ons

I assume the info here covers themes too. I suggest we update the article to be "Updating add-ons".--Np 20:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Good idea. Tanstaafl 09:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Re-enabling disabled extensions

Does this happen any more? Do we have a bug number?--Np 20:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are we recommending against bypassing the version check

Why are we stating in bold "but doing so is not recommended because incompatible add-ons may break your application"? Break is a scary word, it implies a lot more than you may suffer some minor inconvenience while you undo what you did.

Its quite common for add-ons not to be updated for a long time after a new release, and I can't remember anybody ever suffering permanent damage from bypassing a version check. I assume somebody has, sometime, but the odds are very much in your favor that the absolute worst you have to do is launch the application in safe mode and then uninstall the add-on. Normally you'd just uninstall the add-on if it didn't work. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't make the user aware of a potential risk, but it seems we are grossly inflating the risk. Tanstaafl 00:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a fairly common occurrence, especially when a major version gets stuff built in that an extension used to do. The problem I don't think is when the user disables the check, because they know that they did it and so if things go wrong they can just put it back. What I'm mostly concerned with is a user disabling the check, and then updating to a new version months later. They may blame any incompatibilities on the new version rather than the incompatible extensions. The warning isn't meant to say that something will break permanently. If you can figure out better wording, go ahead and change it.--Np 03:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Tech Toolbar

I change a few instances of Mr. Tech Local Install to Mr Tech's Toolbar. I noticed that on the web site it is Mr Tech's http://www.mrtech.com/extensions/local_install/index.html while at AMO it is Mr Tech. Decided to use Mr Tech's under the assumption that was the author's choice.

Linking to AMO

A question though. Some of the pages here link to AMO, others to the author's website. Is there a rule of thumb to be followed here? I didn't change the links. --LoudNoise 21:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of a hard and fast rule (I don't see one on Rules and guidelines ... I'll ask on Knowledge Base changes). I've been using an AMO link wherever possible, for security reasons and because the install will go through seamlessly from AMO while installing from another site may trigger a yellow message bar, asking the user to allow the site, unless the install link actually goes to AMO, as the Nightly Tester Tools and MR Tech's Toolkit author's pages do. I would still use the AMO pages, Nightly Tester Tools and Mr. Tech Toolkit, since a link to the author's website is already included on the AMO pages. Alice 01:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Rules and guidelines#Add-on links now says to use AMO links when possible so I'll change the links. Alice 15:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)