Linux - SoftwareThis forum is for Software issues.
Having a problem installing a new program? Want to know which application is best for the job? Post your question in this forum.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
"xpinstall.signatures.required" is not doing anything in standard Firefox versions. It requires a nightly or beta version. If your distribution has a working "xpinstall.signatures.required" in a standard Firefox version, it is a bug and should be fixed.
However it is in the "about:config" hidden configuration, rather than accessible via the browser "chrome" configuration. I for one don't regard this one as "easy-to-access" - it's perhaps easier than editing prefs.js / user.js directly, but that's about it.
But when all is said and done the signed add ons is a good thing, e.g. like signed packages for a given Linux distribution.
As far as I am aware, setting xpinstall.signatures.required to false only actually works on developer and nightly versions of Firefox, and some Linux distros. Here for example - https://superuser.com/questions/1432...re-enable-them :
Quote:
Setting xpinstall.signatures.required to false will not work on the Beta or Release versions of Firefox on Mac or Windows. Doing so has no effect. On Linux, depending on your distribution, the setting may be respected and does work on some distributions of the release version of Firefox.
Firefox Extended Support Release (ESR), Firefox Developer Edition and Nightly versions of Firefox will allow you to override the setting to enforce the extension signing requirement, by changing the preference xpinstall.signatures.required to false
"xpinstall.signatures.required" is not doing anything in standard Firefox versions. It requires a nightly or beta version. If your distribution has a working "xpinstall.signatures.required" in a standard Firefox version, it is a bug and should be fixed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hydrurga
As far as I am aware, setting xpinstall.signatures.required to false only actually works on developer and nightly versions of Firefox, and some Linux distros. Here for example - https://superuser.com/questions/1432...re-enable-them :
Ok fair enough, I wasn't aware of that.
I am using the OpenBSD port of firefox 62.0.3. It certainly works here.
//edit: also reported to work in 66.0.3 in 6.5-release ports.
When I opened Firefox 66.0.3 a couple of minutes ago, I found that 100% of my add-ons have been deactivated, all of them saying "...could not be verified for use in Firefox and has been disabled". This is even worse that when it happened the first time, when two or three still worked.
Has anyone else experienced this again?
I had a problem with the computer clock being years out of date when I started Firefox, might that be connected to the problem? I have now corrected the clock time, the add-ons are still deactivated.
Edit - suddenly everything has returned to normal, all add-ons now working.
Last edited by grumpyskeptic; 05-13-2019 at 02:48 PM.
When I opened Firefox 66.0.3 a couple of minutes ago, I found that 100% of my add-ons have been deactivated, all of them saying "...could not be verified for use in Firefox and has been disabled". This is even worse that when it happened the first time, when two or three still worked.
Has anyone else experienced this again?
I had a problem with the computer clock being years out of date when I started Firefox, might that be connected to the problem? I have now corrected the clock time, the add-ons are still deactivated.
Edit - suddenly everything has returned to normal, all add-ons now working.
FYI, the latest, "fixed" version of Firefox Quantum is 66.0.5
Firefox 60.6.3ESR, the latest patches backported to ESR fixes the last of the extension glitches, for Slackware-14.2 (Stable). I was not aware of this master password bug. All is good now here with ABP, Noscript, Duckduckgo privacy, user agent switcher.
Quote:
hu May 9 01:39:14 UTC 2019
patches/packages/mozilla-firefox-60.6.3esr-x86_64-1_slack14.2.txz: Upgraded.
This update provides further improvements to re-enable web extensions which
had been disabled for users with a master password set (Bug 1549249).
For more information, see: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo.../releasenotes/
+--------------------------+
Mon May 6 01:29:24 UTC 2019
patches/packages/mozilla-firefox-60.6.2esr-x86_64-1_slack14.2.txz: Upgraded.
This update addresses the issue of add-ons failing to load.
For more information, see: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo.../releasenotes/
Firefox 60.6.3ESR, the latest patches backported to ESR fixes the last of the extension glitches, for Slackware-14.2 (Stable). I was not aware of this master password bug. All is good now here with ABP, Noscript, Duckduckgo privacy, user agent switcher.
DDG? There's also Startpage and Searx search engines.
They even offer a proxy service to view sites anonymously.
There is Qwant too - but I'm not sure what to make of it.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.