On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 19:07:39 -0800, Sailfish wrote: > My bloviated meandering follows what David E. Ross graced us with on > 1/22/2012 5:23 PM: >> On 1/22/12 4:52 PM, NoOp wrote: >>> On 01/22/2012 12:57 PM, Jens Hatlak wrote: >>>> David E. Ross wrote: >>>>> When I try to install BetterPrivacy 1.68 in SeaMonkey 2.6.1, I get the >>>>> following error: "BetterPrivacy could not be installed because it is >>>>> not compatible with SeaMonkey 2.6.1." I get this even when I attempt to >>>>> install directly from the AMO site (not my usual practice). >>>> With the ACR installed, compatibility checks disabled or SM 2.7, you can >>>> install the penultimate version of the add-on from its Version History >>>> page. >>>> >>>>> By the way, selecting the link >>>>> <https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/seamonkey/addon/betterprivacy/> >>>>> redirects to >>>>> <https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/betterprivacy/>. >>>> This is because AMO seems to only check the latest add-on version, which >>>> is no longer declared compatible with SM (author's fault). >>> ... >>> >>> Jens, any possiblity that the compatibility reporter can include a >>> box/tick that the extension works if the install.rdf is modified? >>> >>> For example: with SM 2.7b4 (linux) the following are fine with a >>> modified install.rdf: >>> >>> - Novell Moonlight 3.99.0.2.99 >>> - Password Exporter 1.2.1 >>> >>> But, if the install.rdf is modifed (to say >>> '<em:maxVersion>2.8.*</em:maxVersion>'" and works, the compatibility >>> reporter denotes: "Marked as compatible by developer" when it actually >>> wasn't. But the add-on works when modified locally. >>> >>> Yes, I understand that it is up to the add-on developer to keep this >>> updated (install.rdf), and that is not the issue I am pointing out. The >>> issue is how to sort out compatibility when the install.rdf has been >>> modified locally _and_ the add-on works when modified. >>> >>> >> >> Note that BetterPrivacy 1.68 as downloaded from AMO has install.rdf >> containing the following: >> >> <!--SeaMonkey--> >> <Description RDF:about="rdf:#$dLacB4" >> em:id="{92650c4d-4b8e-4d2a-b7eb-24ecf4f6b63a}" >> em:minVersion="2.0a1" >> em:maxVersion="2.6.*" >> /> >> >> Should not this work with SeaMonkey 2.6.1? >> > That's in the old RDF format so that may be an issue? The newer format > looks something like: > > <!-- SeaMonkey --> > > <em:targetApplication> > <Description> > <em:id>{92650c4d-4b8e-4d2a-b7eb-24ecf4f6b63a}</em:id> > <em:minVersion>1.0</em:minVersion> > <em:maxVersion>2.6.*</em:maxVersion> > </Description> > </em:targetApplication>
There is no such thing as old/new RDF format. These two are identical as far as RDF is concerned. RDF is a directed graph. The problem is that there are an infinite number of ways a RDF graph can be serialized out to disk. The first version listed above is probably written out by the Gecko RDF serializer (the code of which is old crufty). The second version listed above was created manually by someone typing it in with a text editor. When both versions are read into memory and de-serialized, the internal representation in RAM is the same. Phil -- Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my>, <philip.c...@gmail.com> http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief, oh Night, and so be good for us to pass. _______________________________________________ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
