Firefox 42 will not allow unsigned extensions

1. RexRollman ◴[11 Aug 15 09:54 UTC] No.10039938[source]▶

>>10038999 (OP) #

And slowly, freedom everywhere was destroyed in the name of security.

replies(2): >>10040367 #>>10040636 #

2. waspleg ◴[11 Aug 15 12:09 UTC] No.10040367[source]▶

>>10039938 (TP) #

^ This.

3. coldpie ◴[11 Aug 15 13:00 UTC] No.10040636[source]▶

>>10039938 (TP) #

Firefox is open source. Disabling the signature check will probably be a one-line change. Yes, it's a much larger barrier to entry (building Firefox is not trivial), but it's not like IE or Chrome where you have no choice in the matter at all.

replies(1): >>10040932 #

4. rockdoe ◴[11 Aug 15 13:39 UTC] No.10040932[source]▶

>>10040636 #

building Firefox is not trivial

./mach bootstrap

./mach build

replies(1): >>10041430 #

5. rndgermandude ◴[11 Aug 15 14:46 UTC] No.10041430{3}[source]▶

>>10040932 #

Yeah? You at the very least forgot to obtain the source code first somehow. What about build-dependencies, because ./mach bootstrap does not fully handle that?

Now please tell me how to do a Windows release-build with all release features enabled (except for official branding), aka. a ton of configure switches, and also please do it for my language using the official de locale, because neither the source tar.bz2 nor the hg you'd normally clone contains that. I'm starting from scratch of course. And suddenly it is less easy and trivial..

replies(1): >>10042388 #

6. azakai ◴[11 Aug 15 16:36 UTC] No.10042388{4}[source]▶

>>10041430 #

As the link mentions, you don't need to build from source. Binary builds are provided that do not have this restriction, for those that want that.