[meta] Remove support for non-bootstrapped extensions

RESOLVED FIXED

Status

()

RESOLVED FIXED
a year ago
4 months ago

People

(Reporter: kmag, Unassigned)

Tracking

({meta})

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

Comment hidden (empty)

Comment 1

a year ago
What's the planned time frame for this? Mozilla59 ESR or after?
This is not what was promised in https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Firefox57

> This is what things will look like when Firefox 57 hits release and for each release past that
> - Legacy Extension (bootstrapped, overlay, XUL etc).
>   - Nightly, Developer Edition, Unbranded Beta, Unbranded Release
>     - Signed by AMO: YES with pref
>     - Signed by Mozilla internally: YES
>     - Unsigned: YES with pref

So please close the bug as WONTFIX.
(In reply to Oriol Brufau [:Oriol] from comment #2)
> This is not what was promised in https://wiki.mozilla.org/Add-ons/Firefox57

That page refers to what gets blocked immediately at install time.  Not blocking installation of deprecated extensions in certain configurations doesn't imply a promise to support all the other stuff need to keep them running.

> So please close the bug as WONTFIX.

Nope, this is happening.

Comment 4

a year ago
Will Thunderbird drop support for non-bootstrap AddOns for real? Why?

From what I have seen, bootstrap AddOns are a pain in the *** because so much stuff simply does not work and needs to be worked around. Furthermore, most information online seems to be outdated. For example:

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Archive/Add-ons/How_to_convert_an_overlay_extension_to_restartless

There it is stated, that overlays do not work anymore, but I have seen bootstrap AddOns that DO use overlays:

https://addons.mozilla.org/de/thunderbird/addon/view-your-certificates-email-a/

So, where can I find valid and current information on what is supported and what needs to be changed, when I want to convert my non-bottstrap AddOns to bootstrap AddOns?

Does it make sense at all to invest time into switching to bootstrap AddOns, or is that already outdated I should migrate to something else? Or wait and o nothing? (WebExtensions will be skipped, right?)

Comment 5

a year ago
For Thunderbird, you're in the wrong bug. Please consult https://wiki.mozilla.org/Thunderbird/Add-ons_Guide_57 and/or ask on the Maildev mailing list at maildev@lists.thunderbird.net. For Thunderbird 60 ESR, we will still support non-bootstrapped add-ons.
(Reporter)

Updated

a year ago
Depends on: 1446677
(Reporter)

Updated

a year ago
Depends on: 1447831
(Reporter)

Updated

a year ago
Depends on: 1447903
(Reporter)

Updated

a year ago
Depends on: 1448221

Comment 6

a year ago
Now that most support for non-bootstrapped add-ons has been removed in bug 1447831 and bug 1448221, may I ask what the future holds for bootstrapped add-ons. Will they continue to be supported? Of course they would suffer from any changes made to the Mozilla platform. The background is: Does it make sense to make some Thunderbird add-ons bootstrapped?
Flags: needinfo?(kmaglione+bmo)
Flags: needinfo?(aswan)
(Reporter)

Comment 7

a year ago
That's a complicated question. The answer is somewhere between yes and no.

Bootstrapped extensions in their current form are going away, at least in Firefox. For a start, we're working on removing support for RDF, which means install.rdf support will have to go. I'm also planning to remove support for loading extension chrome.manifest files, for performance reasons, once system add-ons have finished migrating to Fluent.

That said, we're going to continue supporting some form of bootstrapped add-ons that are as powerful as current bootstrapped add-ons. For Firefox, that will probably mean WebExtensions with embedded experiment APIs.

For Thunderbird, I'm willing to provide hooks so that you can handle loading bootstrapped add-ons however you want, just so long as the code for dealing with bootstrap scopes and chrome manifest files lives in comm-central.
Flags: needinfo?(kmaglione+bmo)
Flags: needinfo?(aswan)

Comment 8

a year ago
Thanks for the answer, we'll see about the details over the course of 2018. Right now we have to deal with non-bootstrapped add-ons not working any more, see bug 1449149 and bug 1449487.

Comment 9

a year ago
Kris, we managed to change all the add-ons we use for testing to bootstrapped: They were Mozmill, JS Bridge and then two used in individual tests.

Would you please be so as kind to announce further changes in this area. We have "big ticket" add-ons, like Calendar and Enigmail. Enigmail is important for the entire crypto community including Edward Snowden (I believe). Calendar might me made bootstrapped or amalgamated with TB (bug 1449487).
(Reporter)

Comment 10

a year ago
I can CC you on relevant bugs. But please be aware that add-on manager changes aren't the only things that are going to wind up affecting those add-ons. Bug 1448162 is close to landing, and will remove support for XUL overlays, which will break overlay-based extensions even if they are rolled into Thunderbird.

Comment 11

a year ago
Thanks Kris. We're well aware of bug 1448162, in fact, I'm in contact with the assignee. We're removing overlays from TB, I'll land one removal later today, then we're down to a handful in the compose window's HTML editor. I can't speak for the Calendar people and what their plans are. Enigmail is already restartless and has removed use of overlays.
(Reporter)

Updated

10 months ago
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 10 months ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED

Comment 12

7 months ago
(In reply to Kris Maglione [:kmag] from comment #7)
> That's a complicated question. The answer is somewhere between yes and no.
> 
> Bootstrapped extensions in their current form are going away, at least in
> Firefox. For a start, we're working on removing support for RDF, which means
> install.rdf support will have to go. I'm also planning to remove support for
> loading extension chrome.manifest files, for performance reasons, once
> system add-ons have finished migrating to Fluent.
> 
> That said, we're going to continue supporting some form of bootstrapped
> add-ons that are as powerful as current bootstrapped add-ons. For Firefox,
> that will probably mean WebExtensions with embedded experiment APIs.
> 
> For Thunderbird, I'm willing to provide hooks so that you can handle loading
> bootstrapped add-ons however you want, just so long as the code for dealing
> with bootstrap scopes and chrome manifest files lives in comm-central.


so now 5 months later, whats the situation ??? 

me and friends have made an effort to port bootstrapped addons to ff60+  , how will i be able to run chrome code  in ff65 ?

can i make "dummy" webext apis for nightly and run my chrome code simply from there ? or can i port the bootstrap loader forward from ff65 or will you, kris, help in providing the same hooks for ff65+ that you do in tb? 

i cant really live without all my tab addons. im also willing to build webext apis (its not that hard) but im 100% sure they wouldnt be accepted by mozilla. 

what does really change from ff64 to 65 ?  would it be easy to port forward the bootstrap method with a custom build ? i mean the removal will be stretched over many files, but i gues the rest (for webext) stays almost the same ? 

please fill me in on this. i dont really want to rely on outdated browsers either. a small community of people would be really thankfull for any help regarding this issue.
(In reply to alexmehler from comment #12)
> so now 5 months later, whats the situation ??? 

Same as it was before, this is still planned for the Firefox 65 cycle

> me and friends have made an effort to port bootstrapped addons to ff60+  ,
> how will i be able to run chrome code  in ff65 ?

WebExtensions experiments will be the only supported method to run privileged code from a webextension.

If you have further questions, discussions like this are better handled on the dev-addons mailing list than in bugzilla comments.  Thanks.

Comment 14

7 months ago
(In reply to Andrew Swan [:aswan] from comment #13)
> Same as it was before, this is still planned for the Firefox 65 cycle
Could I request a few weeks of heads-up. TB uses two (now) bootstrapped add-ons for its testing: MozMill and JS Bridge. We will need to move them to the "new scheme" mentioned in comment #7.
(In reply to Jorg K (GMT+2) from comment #14)
> Could I request a few weeks of heads-up. TB uses two (now) bootstrapped
> add-ons for its testing: MozMill and JS Bridge. We will need to move them to
> the "new scheme" mentioned in comment #7.

We need to actually work that scheme out.  But that should happen in a new bug, not here.  I'll be sure to cc you when that bug is created.  As for heads up, the schedule is still "some time during the 65 cycle"

Comment 16

7 months ago
Could I also get a CC for that new bug? Thank you very much!
Comment hidden (off-topic)
Comment hidden (off-topic)
Jorg (and anybody else interested) please see bug 857456 for details about the removal of bootstrap and next steps.
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.