[Project_owners] Should mozdev.org generate an updates.rdf file for our projects?
Douglas E. Warner
silfreed at silfreed.net
Fri Dec 7 12:36:49 PST 2007
On Friday 07 December 2007, Eric H. Jung wrote:
> > 1) PO uploads their XPI file to their downloads/ folder
> Can't this be done from the HTML pages in steps 2-3 using <input
Mozdev only supports adding download files through CVS at this time.
> > 3) PO chooses "release" beside the file and is asked to provide the
> > following information:
> > a) file hash (md5/sha1) to verify the file was uploaded properly
> > b) update info url
> For 3b: the update url is already provided in install.rdf, which is within
> the previously uploaded XPI, as a text node child of the <em:updateURL/>
> element. Therefore, no need to prompt the user for it again--right?
I was referring to <em:updateInfoURL/>. From re-reading the spec, this is
probably an optional feature since it is being introduced in Gecko 1.9.
> I don't know if incremental updates are still forced by the extension
> manager. I hope they are :)
I kinda figured as much; otherwise an extension would continue to bloat over
time since the developer could never remove update code.
Given that, does there need to be a way to "age out" old updates, or once a
developer creates an extension, all updates have to be in the update.rdf
(singular!) until the end of time?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://www.mozdev.org/pipermail/project_owners/attachments/20071207/da20deff/attachment.bin
More information about the Project_owners