Frequent maxVersion woes
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Felipe Gomes (:felipe)
Aug 18, 2010, 11:16:35 PM8/18/10
to mozilla-labs-jetpack
Hello all,
I've noticed that very often we and many users have problems with the
maxVersion numbers on the SDK. For example, on the currently released
version, 0.6, the Gecko maxVersion is still 1.9.3 instead of 2.0,
which makes it not work with the current FF betas. If 0.7 is released
with 4.0b4pre, in a week or two it won't be working again.
So, we should come up with an strategy for that!
Of course, some maxVersion checks are necessary to mark things that
are indeed incompatible, but in these cases it's clear that the SDK
actually works, it just denies to load due to the versioning.
It's my understanding that no other API-breaking changes are planned
for FF4 at this point, but we should double check on that. I'd suggest
bumping maxVersion to FF4 final, but I don't think that AMO already
allows hosting add-ons tagged like that, so I really don't know what
the answer is.
Note: this is not only a problem for released versions. This weekend I
was trying to bisect something on hg, but it was not an easy task to
go more than a few weeks back in history because of that.
Felipe
I've noticed that very often we and many users have problems with the
maxVersion numbers on the SDK. For example, on the currently released
version, 0.6, the Gecko maxVersion is still 1.9.3 instead of 2.0,
which makes it not work with the current FF betas. If 0.7 is released
with 4.0b4pre, in a week or two it won't be working again.
So, we should come up with an strategy for that!
Of course, some maxVersion checks are necessary to mark things that
are indeed incompatible, but in these cases it's clear that the SDK
actually works, it just denies to load due to the versioning.
It's my understanding that no other API-breaking changes are planned
for FF4 at this point, but we should double check on that. I'd suggest
bumping maxVersion to FF4 final, but I don't think that AMO already
allows hosting add-ons tagged like that, so I really don't know what
the answer is.
Note: this is not only a problem for released versions. This weekend I
was trying to bisect something on hg, but it was not an easy task to
go more than a few weeks back in history because of that.
Felipe
Marcio Galli
Aug 19, 2010, 1:10:35 AM8/19/10
to mozilla-la...@googlegroups.com
Another big problem that is causing a bunch of confusion is the -b option in mac osx. When folks get the GRE check problem they are informed to use -b option.
They they sometimes pass the full path to Firefox binary, like -b ~/.../Firefox.app/Content/MacOS/firefox-bin
which does not work. And not working means the default. Which causes an impression that worked. :)
So, at least in my laptop Mac OSX, passing -b like the above is the same of not passing -b. It only works if one passes the -b ~/.../Firefox.app
M
--
blog.taboca.com
They they sometimes pass the full path to Firefox binary, like -b ~/.../Firefox.app/Content/MacOS/firefox-bin
which does not work. And not working means the default. Which causes an impression that worked. :)
So, at least in my laptop Mac OSX, passing -b like the above is the same of not passing -b. It only works if one passes the -b ~/.../Firefox.app
M
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "mozilla-labs-jetpack" group.
To post to this group, send email to mozilla-la...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to mozilla-labs-jet...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla-labs-jetpack?hl=en.
--
blog.taboca.com
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages