I received the following email from mozilla.
I have a self-hosted add-on. So I tried firefox-beta and nightly to see if I could install the add-on with a direct URL(not mozilla URL).
The result was that, unlike the information in the email, I was able to install my add-on and it worked correctly.
Is the information in this email incorrect?
This email was confusing to me too, especially the word “activation” in “Firefox will be requiring user activation to start an add-on install.” Activation of what?
Or was it supposed to be action (e.g. click on a link)? That would make a lot more sense and would mean that automatic installations of addons (e.g. via some javascript running on page load) will no longer be possible. Direct click on a link would still work fine.
I’m not a native speaker so it took me a while to figure out that it’s possibly misspelled “action” (or unusual for me usage of “activation”).
I had a similar question - I couldn’t understand the difference between Firefox 100 and the previous versions. I have thought in the past that self-hosted addons were to be distributed with a direct link to XPI. Is there anything that has been discontinued?
One difference that I noticed while testing our self-hosted extension in Firefox 100.0 is that after opening the XPI link, I need to click in the address space and click Enter for Firefox to show usual install dialog. Is that a bug? Where should it be reported? Or this change is exactly about that?
Previously opening the XPI link was triggering the usual install dialog where Firefox asks confirmation from the user to add it to the browser.
This is happening on macOS, btw. Can be easily reproduced by running “open -a Firefox <link_to_xpi>” in Terminal.
I was getting this e-mail on an outdated e-mail address, which I was about to shut down. I’m not sure this is e-mail is legit, since all my firefox profiles are configured for the new e-mail addresses and my new e-mail address did not receive this e-mail (I do get other e-mails from mozilla on the new e-mail address).
I would advice caution with this.
submitted bug 1766965 on bugzilla site. will see what response will come to this report.