Created attachment 276688 [details] the modified xpi file Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-US; rv:18.104.22.168) Gecko/20070725 Firefox/22.214.171.124 I downloaded the abacus_1.2.xpi from the project above. I hand-edited the install.rdf and re-created the xpi. I made it so that it should work with FF 1.7 to 126.96.36.199. I get an incompatible extension message when trying to install. But the alert says: serverpost 0.6 could not be installed because it is not compatible with Firefox 188.8.131.52. (serverpost 0.6 will only work with Firefox versions from 1.7 t 184.108.40.206) So, either it should load the extension and that is an error, or it is not explaining what the actual problem is, and that is an error. Either way, there seems to be a problem.
Lovely. You've got what apparently was once the Suite's em:targetApplication section as a second one with Firefox's em:id, and the EM code seems to expect exactly one answer about min and max version, not the something different every time you ask that the RDF service will give you from that.
Component: Extension Compatibility → Extension/Theme Manager
QA Contact: extension.compatibility → extension.manager
Summary: FF complains extension not compatible, but wrongly or explanation is wrong → install.rdf with two <em:targetApplication>s, first incompatible and second compatible, uses first for check and second for message
Yes, this was just a not-very-well-thought-out hack to see if a very old extension could still do anything at all. Obviously, if I try to make this extension work again, I will be diligent in making sure that the keys of the install.rdf are correct and the info is correct. In the meanwhile, is there some error checking that should be going on in the extensions install so that the error reported to the user has something to do with the real problem? Given that extension installations are not done 50 times a day, a little sanity checking might not be a bad thing.
There is lots of error checking and messages focused at the average end user but not the very rare edge case of someone modifying someone else's extension.
11 years ago
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 11 years ago
Resolution: --- → INVALID
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.