Closed Nicholas-Steel closed 7 years ago
As much as doing it yourself, which you actually can if you want to. Add-on sign-in on AMO is relatively simple and doesn't take more than 1 minute, as long as it is isn't for publishing on their store.
Could you please explain how to do it, or link to a good source of information on the process? Also somehow my existing installation of the extension from before Mozilla mandated that Extensions be digitally signed, still works, even though I can't install it anymore (without signing it). Weird that the browser didn't disable the unsigned extension (Maybe I did manage to digitally sign the copy that is currently installed?).
Or, wait, no, I'm using the Userscript developer version which relies upon Greasemonkey which does have a digitally signed version of it... so this means this report is somewhat redundant. The Userscript version doesn't need to be digitally signed, only the Grease Monkey extension needs a digital signature.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/Distribution#Self-distributed_(unlisted)_versions
If you find any errors then you might understand why no one decided to "bother" signing an extension that can't be signed until all of those errors are fixed.
For more see here: https://github.com/YePpHa/YouTubeCenter/issues/2141#issuecomment-166273803
Thank you for the links.
For people wondering, here is how you can disable signature enforcement of Extensions (for now): https://www.ghacks.net/2016/08/14/override-firefox-add-on-signing-requirement/
Article was updated in March 2017.
Now that development has slowed significantly due to various reasons, would it be too much of a bother to have the current developer version verified/digitally signed/certified so it can be installed on new Firefox?