Several extensions depend on common util extensions like JSlib. In addition to
extension dependencies (bug 298497), it would be good to allow these extensions
to come bundled with their dependencies (a multi-extension XPI). I'm not quite
sure how this should be accomplished (subdirectories?, a new manifest format?).
Simplest would be a new install manifest format. Existing extension xpi's could
be packaged into a single xpi with the new manifest and then installed all at
the same time. Signing could be done on the top level xpi and we wouldn't
concern ourselves with signing on the individual xpi's contained. It isn't fancy
but it would get the job done and keeps the packaging process as simple as can be.
Robert, if you would like to write up a design proposal (on wiki.m.o perhaps?)
that I can review, that would be great. I was just thinking of something like
/extensions.list (contains a plaintext list of GUIDS)
I will write something up... it would be simpler and less error prone to just
package up the xpi's insiide of another xpi instead of extracting them into
their GUID dir's.
Here it is...
Created attachment 188751 [details] [diff] [review]
work in progress
This works... it just needs additional error handling and cleanup.
Anyone have suggestions for the obvious bad names like MULTI_XPI, etc.?
The format of the install manifest is available on the wiki
I kinda like multi_xpi, but I suppose you could use multi_item.
Created attachment 188824 [details] [diff] [review]
No longer allows jar files to be a multi_xpi and adds some user notification
when errors occur. em:name and em:version are needed in the install manifest to
leverage existing user notification especially when installing by dropping the
xpi into a extensions directory since that uses em:name in the xpinstall
dialog. This is close to being done but I am unsure if a multi_xpi should
support compatibility updates. If it does then em:id will also be required
which wouldn't be such a bad thing as I see it.
Created attachment 188888 [details] [diff] [review]
I believe this is the ticket... the wiki contains notes as to why I decided to
keep the format of the install manifest the same as for extensions.
Created attachment 188893 [details] [diff] [review]
Moved one multi_xpi specific user notification that wasn't in installMultiXPI
Comment on attachment 188893 [details] [diff] [review]
You don't need to rev the iid of nsIExtensionManager if you're only adding a
constant, it doesn't affect the interface vtable.
In extensions.properties, change "Multiple Item XPI" to "Multiple Extension
Created attachment 189018 [details] [diff] [review]
Addresses comments... thanks for the review! Are you ok with this landing after
1.1a2 is released?
Comment on attachment 189018 [details] [diff] [review]
Yes, this will get 1.8b4+ whenever we get b3 out the door.
Checking in mozilla/toolkit/mozapps/extensions/public/nsIExtensionManager.idl;
new revision: 1.37; previous revision: 1.36
Checking in mozilla/toolkit/mozapps/extensions/src/nsExtensionManager.js.in;
new revision: 1.125; previous revision: 1.124
new revision: 1.14; previous revision: 1.13
Hm, what happens if FooExt 0.5 is part of a multi-XPI, but the user already has
FooExt 1.0? Unless I overlooked it in the patch, there is no special handling
for this, so FooExt gets downgraded - which probably isn't what we want here...
This bug provided the base functionality and new bugs should be opened for
additional functionality or if there is anything broken in the base
functionality as described in the wiki.
It would be good to get semi-official documentation of this feature up at or
linked to http://developer-test.mozilla.org/en/docs/Extension_Packaging
(In reply to comment #16)
> It would be good to get semi-official documentation of this feature up at or
> linked to http://developer-test.mozilla.org/en/docs/Extension_Packaging
I added the following but my wiki skills are lacking for addiing it to the