Duplicate versions of add-ons should be removed upon Firefox upgrade

RESOLVED INACTIVE

Status

()

defect
RESOLVED INACTIVE
9 years ago
a year ago

People

(Reporter: jboriss, Unassigned)

Tracking

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

Attachments

(3 attachments)

(Reporter)

Description

9 years ago
When a user upgrades to Firefox 4.0, any duplicate versions of add-ons they have should be removed automatically.  JavaScript Console in particular is prone to duplicate versions.
In discussions it was decided that just blocklisting these was the easiest course of action.
Are there other extensions or plugins that have a huge number of duplicate versions, or are we confident that this problem only involves the java console?
I've never heard of any case besides the Java console, neither had Rob or anyone else I spoke to
Comment #3 is a *big time* understatement. The issue with the JRE started several years ago due to the authors of the JRE distributing the Java Console with the each new release of the JRE. After we talked this over with them several times they saw the error in their approach and stopped doing this... once again... several years ago. The issue here is that neither of us have ever cleaned up what happened after this occurred and it is by no means obvious how to clean up except with a sledgehammer approach which is what bug 597235 is about.
FWIW, I have two copies of Microsoft DRM 9.0.0.4503 installed.  So it's not *just* Java.
(In reply to comment #5)
> FWIW, I have two copies of Microsoft DRM 9.0.0.4503 installed.  So it's not
> *just* Java.

Do they show as plugins or extensions?
(In reply to comment #6)
> Do they show as plugins or extensions?

Plugins.
(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > Do they show as plugins or extensions?
> 
> Plugins.

Can you attach a copy of pluginreg.dat from your profile
(In reply to comment #5)
> FWIW, I have two copies of Microsoft DRM 9.0.0.4503 installed.  So it's not
> *just* Java.
For reference, it isn't *Java* but the *Java Console* extension. Though plugins are displayed in the add-ons manager and can be disabled the discovery of plugins is actually performed by Core -> Plugins which the add-ons manager queries for plugins and not by the add-ons manager.

Comment 11

9 years ago
Why this bug is marked as Mac OS X only? I get the same with Microsoft Windows (XP and Seven).
(In reply to comment #11)
> Why this bug is marked as Mac OS X only? I get the same with Microsoft Windows
> (XP and Seven).

Because I filed it on an OS X computer, and those fields are autopopulated. Fixed, thanks. :)
OS: Mac OS X → All
Hardware: x86 → All
(In reply to comment #9)
> Created attachment 476655 [details]
> pluginreg.dat (per comment 8)

What are they showing up as in the extension manager, do they have different descriptions? In your case you actually have 3 different plugins calling themselves "Microsoft DRM", two of them are identical and I suspect we are already coalescing their entries in the list, the other is a different plugin that just happens to have the same name.
(In reply to comment #13)
> (In reply to comment #9)
> What are they showing up as in the extension manager, do they have different
> descriptions?

Now that I look more closely, indeed they do have different descriptions.  One is the "DRM Netscape Network Object", and one is the "DRM Store Netscape Plugin".
Comment on attachment 476655 [details]
pluginreg.dat (per comment 8)

Ok that matches what I would expect. The former handles the mimetype application/x-drm-v2 and the latter handles application/x-drm. It isn't ideal but I don't think we can just remove one of them as they seem to serve different purposes
(Reporter)

Comment 16

9 years ago
(In reply to comment #1)
> In discussions it was decided that just blocklisting these was the easiest
> course of action.

Can we hide these blocklisted duplicate items rather than display them in the red blocklisting style?  To show them as a potential security/stability problem would be entirely the wrong message (mockup of notification styles attached).

Comment 17

9 years ago
I have these dupes (but I am sure I have seen others previously):

"VLC Multimedia Plug-in 1.1.2.0"
"VLC Multimedia Plug-in 1.1.3.0"

Those are from http://www.videolan.org/ and I can't use the "Get Add-ons" Button since it says that the info can't be displayed in a Frame but needs a new window.

So it is not just "the *Java Console* extension" or different companies (people) naming their plug-ins with the same name.
(In reply to comment #17)
> I have these dupes (but I am sure I have seen others previously):
> 
> "VLC Multimedia Plug-in 1.1.2.0"
> "VLC Multimedia Plug-in 1.1.3.0"

Could you attach a copy of pluginreg.dat from your profile folder.

Comment 19

9 years ago
(In reply to comment #18)
> (In reply to comment #17)
> > I have these dupes (but I am sure I have seen others previously):
> > 
> > "VLC Multimedia Plug-in 1.1.2.0"
> > "VLC Multimedia Plug-in 1.1.3.0"
> 
> Could you attach a copy of pluginreg.dat from your profile folder.
Attachment #483852 - Attachment mime type: application/octet-stream → text/plain

Comment 20

9 years ago
(In reply to comment #17)
> ... and I can't use the "Get Add-ons"
> Button since it says that the info can't be displayed in a Frame but needs a
> new window.

That Bug just got fixed a minute ago.

Rob

Comment 21

9 years ago
(In reply to comment #20)
> (In reply to comment #17)
> > ... and I can't use the "Get Add-ons"
> > Button since it says that the info can't be displayed in a Frame but needs a
> > new window.
> 
> That Bug just got fixed a minute ago.
> 
> Rob

and a minute later it is broke again ... So whatever it is it is either intermittent or "server side".

Rob
Since plugins are a different beast and iirc are grouped by the name and descriptions having the same string vs. having an id perhaps they should be one-off'd just as core->plugins one-off's finding major plugins. Something like grouping all descriptions that contain Apple and QuickTime in the name for example? Wouldn't be 100% but neither is the current method.

Also, if the purpose of this bug is to improve startup then removing the plugins won't help.

Comment 23

9 years ago
(In reply to comment #22)
> Since plugins are a different beast and iirc are grouped by the name and
> descriptions having the same string vs. having an id perhaps they should be
> one-off'd just as core->plugins one-off's finding major plugins. Something like
> grouping all descriptions that contain Apple and QuickTime in the name for
> example? Wouldn't be 100% but neither is the current method.

In Namoroka 3.6.12pre the "Plugins" Window has a little 'toggle box' for altering the display format. A second box could toggle between "traditional" and what you suggest, the ability to sort more ways than one gives a better chance of eyeballing the dupes.

A "Central Registry" that was queried when installing the Plug-ins to see if the Plug-in has "Approved Status" or is "Junk Status" would encourage Authors to have their own Installer remove outdated versions of their Plug-ins and otherwise conform to acceptable standards. The "Junk" could be shown in the top of the Pane (so you see right away) and stuff "known to work" would be sorted underneath.

> Also, if the purpose of this bug is to improve startup then removing the
> plugins won't help.

We need some Plug-ins at some point in the startup since sometimes when I restart (after an update) I get a _second_ Firewall pop-up for Plugin_container.exe (or whatever it's name is) so Plug-ins definitely get used prior to the completion of the starting.


The WORSE part is I was just running "Firefox 4.0b6" and now I am back running "Namoroka 3.6.12pre". Running 4.0 wrecked my Theming in 3.6.12pre and also UNINSTALLED "VLC Multimedia Plug-in 1.1.3.0" (the NEWEST one!).

Rob

PS: I also notice that I have multiple Quicktime plug-ins of different versions.
The trouble is that they are more often not actually duplicates. There can be and often are multiple plugin dll's which are all counted as individual plugins that actually handle different mimetypes. You can easily see this in about:plugins and QuickTime is a perfect example of this.


(In reply to comment #23)
> > Also, if the purpose of this bug is to improve startup then removing the
> > plugins won't help.
> 
> We need some Plug-ins at some point in the startup since sometimes when I
> restart (after an update) I get a _second_ Firewall pop-up for
> Plugin_container.exe (or whatever it's name is) so Plug-ins definitely get used
> prior to the completion of the starting.
That is after startup... possibly the plugin check page.

> 
> The WORSE part is I was just running "Firefox 4.0b6" and now I am back running
> "Namoroka 3.6.12pre". Running 4.0 wrecked my Theming in 3.6.12pre and also
> UNINSTALLED "VLC Multimedia Plug-in 1.1.3.0" (the NEWEST one!).
Firefox does not and will likely never uninstall 3rd party software. It is more likely that core->plugins didn't discover the "VLC Multimedia Plug-in 1.1.3.0" installation for some reason.

Comment 25

9 years ago
(In reply to comment #24)
> The trouble is that they are more often not actually duplicates. There can be
> and often are multiple plugin dll's which are all counted as individual plugins
> that actually handle different mimetypes. You can easily see this in
> about:plugins and QuickTime is a perfect example of this.
> 


??? > "There can be and often are multiple plugin dll's which are all counted as individual plugins that actually handle different mimetypes."

Huh ? Did you mean to type something different ?

Would different (plug-in) dll's not ALWAYS be different "individual plugins", that often but not always handled different mimetypes (IE: VLC _could_ do QT, Real, Wmp, swf, and many other formats). But we digress.

> 
> (In reply to comment #23)
> > > Also, if the purpose of this bug is to improve startup then removing the
> > > plugins won't help.
> > 
> > We need some Plug-ins at some point in the startup since sometimes when I
> > restart (after an update) I get a _second_ Firewall pop-up for
> > Plugin_container.exe (or whatever it's name is) so Plug-ins definitely get used
> > prior to the completion of the starting.
> That is after startup... possibly the plugin check page.
> 

I have near 100 Tabs open when I start FF (due to TM+) so I think of "startup" as the time it takes to get the Tabs loaded so they are 'usable' (at least, and _fully_ loaded is best). The FW popup for the plugin_container is due to ytube loading a video a minutes or so into the "starting" (as _I_ call it).


> > 
> > The WORSE part is I was just running "Firefox 4.0b6" and now I am back running
> > "Namoroka 3.6.12pre". Running 4.0 wrecked my Theming in 3.6.12pre and also
> > UNINSTALLED "VLC Multimedia Plug-in 1.1.3.0" (the NEWEST one!).
> Firefox does not and will likely never uninstall 3rd party software. It is more
> likely that core->plugins didn't discover the "VLC Multimedia Plug-in 1.1.3.0"
> installation for some reason.

I'll type it again:

Running 4.0 "uninstalled" (deleted / removed a duplicate, call it what you like) the "VLC Multimedia Plug-in 1.1.3.0" (the NEWEST one!), and left the "VLC Multimedia Plug-in 1.1.2.0" (the OLDEST one!) in order to "fix" my having two entries. A better fix would have been to delete the older one and leave the new one.
The point is that VLC, QuickTime, etc. can and often do ship multiple plugin dll's that handle different mimetypes and some people mistakenly think they are duplicate plugins when in fact they are not.

As for why your newer VLC plugin was removed that is a mystery. Our installer and updater code does not touch much less remove any 3rd party plugin files.
(Reporter)

Updated

8 years ago
Summary: Duplicate versions of add-ons should be removed upon upgrade to Firefox 4.0 → Duplicate versions of add-ons should be removed upon Firefox upgrade

Comment 27

5 years ago
This BR is a few years old.

With the new 'PluginCheck System' not reporting all plugins the visibility of this to the end User is now gone. 

IF Firefox is going to go in to the Directory and try to figure out what exactly is a duplicate (without User intervention) it will take some fancy programming or a long List -- I suggest we are not likely to do either.

If that is the case could this be closed as "RESOLVED" "WONTFIX".

Comment 28

a year ago
Per policy at https://wiki.mozilla.org/Bug_Triage/Projects/Bug_Handling/Bug_Husbandry#Inactive_Bugs. If this bug is not an enhancement request or a bug not present in a supported release of Firefox, then it may be reopened.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: a year ago
Resolution: --- → INACTIVE
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.