Add-on Compatibility for Firefox 44

Firefox 44 will be released on January 26th. Here’s the list of changes that went into this version that can affect add-on compatibility. There is more information available in Firefox 44 for Developers, so you should also give it a look.





Let me know in the comments if there’s anything missing or incorrect on these lists. If your add-on breaks on Firefox 44, I’d like to know.

The automatic compatibility validation and upgrade for add-ons on AMO will happen in the coming weeks, so keep an eye on your email if you have an add-on listed on our site with its compatibility set to Firefox 43.

26 responses

  1. Winni Karg wrote on :

    Warum kann Acrobat XI Standard nicht verifiziert werden?

    1. Jorge Villalobos wrote on :

      I don’t know what the status of that add-on is. It’s up to Adobe to submit it for signing and to distribute a signed version to all users.

  2. Sören Hentzschel wrote on :


    > Firefox 43 is currently enforcing add-on signing, with a preference to override it. Firefox 44 will remove the preference entirely

    The Mozilla Wiki (Firefox/AddOns/Status/Updates: Status for December 24th, 2015) says:

    “Currently targeting Signing with no pref to turn off in Firefox 47.”

    1. Jorge Villalobos wrote on :

      That’s either a typo or a plan that hasn’t fully surfaced. I do know of a couple of bugs that could block us from removing the pref, and I suspect that it will be pushed back at least one version, but the official source of truth for signing is this doc, and that hasn’t been updated yet.

      1. Sören Hentzschel wrote on :

        The roadmap ( also lists “Add-on signing (Mandatory)” in the Firefox 47 column, one of the bugzilla bugs said Firefox 45 two weeks ago ad the wiki page in your comment still says Firefox 44, it’s confusing. 😉

  3. Kohei Yoshino wrote on :

    Japanese translation is up:

    1. Jorge Villalobos wrote on :


  4. Kent Smith wrote on :

    The realdownloader add-on was apparently disabled in Firefox on 2015-11-12. Can you please re-sign the add-on so I can use it without having to switch browsers?

    Thank you.

    1. Jorge Villalobos wrote on :

      I’m not sure which add-on you’re referring to, but it’s up to the developer to get it signed in order for it to continue to work.

  5. Frank wrote on :

    I’m using a shared (in an own NTFS partition) profile dir for both FF in my Windows10/Linux dual boot system. I have redirected the respective original mozilla profile dir to the shared dir via “mklink -j” in Windows and “ln -s” in Linux. It worked excellent – until beginning of december. Is here maybe version 43 the culprit with its addon signing?

    The shared profile dir is still used from FF in both systems, so i have access to all bookmarks and addons. But when i change the OS from Linux to Windows or vice versa the addons are always disabled with the first FF start, so i have to activate them manually. Otherwise if i start FF repeatedly within the same OS the
    addons be performed without problems.

    Do u have a hint how to solve this problem?

    1. Jorge Villalobos wrote on :

      I don’t know if you’re the same person, but there’s a bug filed with that description here.

  6. Ben Basson wrote on :

    I have to say, every blog post I read erodes more good will that I have towards Mozilla and towards continuing with my add-ons. NewTabURL.jsm has been around for precisely three major versions so far and now it’s already deprecated? Ridiculous.

    I guess at least when we’re all forced to use WebExtensions and have no functionality, at least Mozilla won’t break the API set with arbitrary changes every five minutes.

  7. Ben Basson wrote on :

    Could someone at Mozilla make it easier to download *specific* versions of the developer builds without hunting around the FTP structure as well? Not all of us want the latest build all the time.

  8. Dr. Spies wrote on :

    I hate to sound ungrateful, nor petulant, as I do prefer Firefox as a browser, but recently it seems as if updates, changes, etc., appear almost daily. For better or worse, depending upon perspective, this incredibly frequent revision schedules, and Firefox’s persistence in reminding users that there is a new(er) version available, I seem to be spending a significant amount of time downloading new versions (which I do recognize are generally beneficial, and do enhance security, but…) rather than being able to actually jump in and get some work done. Admittedly, I am not a programmer, nor even a particularly skilled user, hence I may fail to recognize the benefits accruing to each revision, but it seems as if this revision schedule, for the most part unless I am missing something in the upgrade/update process, results in the necessity for me to have to go into the options section, and manually revert virtually every individual property (except for the “Startup Window” and even that frequently seems to be changed without any permission or affirmation of the process other than watching for, and hopefully catching the “Revert” or “Undo” pop-up). Is there any way that these revisions or updated versions could be classified as either Critical (meaning that failing to install them exposes the user to serious damage or compromise of information) or PRN (as in “Convenience”, or “Preference”) with the latter limited to weekly reminders, except where there is a major rewrite or revision to the Firefox program itself. Many times I would just prefer to limit these updates to a monthly cumulative process, especially when I am working in a foreign, or lesser controlled environment, or when I am really not interested in doing anything more than scan my email for critical, or client issues, leaving the rest to be “Triaged” back at the office when I get back in. Again, I am not sure if this is a “practical” request, but even if these releases can only be limited to bi-weekly rather than monthly, I know that simply eliminating the > update, revision, or version releases, limiting them to perhaps one or two would be one of the most appreciated improvements to this browser series.

    1. me wrote on :

      Jorge stops replying when he’s bothered with a remark/question. He’s always been like that.

      1. Jorge Villalobos wrote on :

        Not sure why this particular post would bother me, I just can’t respond to everything. Seems like the best solution for the poster is to use ESR.

  9. margsview wrote on :

    I am a bit confused, I am subscribed to Montreal Blog, but all of a sudden their content cannot be viewed as a pop-up comes forth stating they are being blocked by an Ad-block from my site?……Can anyone help me—I don’t understand how and why this happened? As well, I don’t know why I have to click on a pop-up that states they cannot find Microsoft 10 license in my Firefox each and every time I want to operate Firefox? Any assistance would be appreciated,thank you.

    1. Jorge Villalobos wrote on :

      You can find help on our support site.

  10. Strazdas wrote on :

    Here, ill fix it for you: Firefox 44 will remove the preference entirely, which means Firefox will be uninstalled and a functional browser will be found.

    As a loyal firefox user for 9 years i am severely disappointed i will be forced to abandon it due to developement oversight that does not allow users to manually force enabling unsigned addons.

  11. Nicholas Hoyt wrote on :

    On Thu. Jan. 21st I uploaded a new version of the AInspector Sidebar add-on, v1.0.0-beta.2, which fixes the ‘Move DevTools code to /devtools top-level directory’ issues that compatibility testing had found, and it was made available on AMO.

    However, the previous version, v1.0.0-beta.1, dated Oct. 1, 2015, which is incompatible with Firefox 44, is still listed as the latest version of the add-on, and is the only one visible on the add-on’s main page.

    We are jumping through hoops to notify our users that (1) they will need to install the latest version of AInspector Sidebar for compatibility with Firefox 44, but that (2) they can only find it listed on the AInspector Sidebar Version History page as the first item in the list, and to (3) ignore what the AMO site lists as the latest version on the add-on’s main page.

    How do we fix this?

    1. Jorge Villalobos wrote on :

      Version 1.0.0-beta.1 passed review, while version 1.0.0-beta.2 is marked as a beta version. AMO has some automatic beta detection code that will move certain versions to the beta channel of the add-on by default. Please email amo-admins AT mozilla DOT org explaining the situation and letting us know what you want to do (presumably move the latest version to the review queue?).

  12. Isa wrote on :

    I have a problem. I have Kapersky Internet Security installed but the add-on is deactivated. Can you please activate it or tell me how to do so. There is no button to click on for activation on my screen. Sorry to bother you.

    1. Jorge Villalobos wrote on :

      First thing you should try is to update your Kaspersky software, or look on the Kaspersky website to see if there’s a new version of the add-on you’re trying to use. If that doesn’t work, please try on our support site.

  13. Dave wrote on :

    Youtube Center Developer Edition is disabled with FF44 (64bit) even with xpinstall.signatures.required set to false

    1. Jorge Villalobos wrote on :

      Do you see any messages in the Add-ons Manager? Do you see a button to enable the extension?

    2. Gummy Gator wrote on :

      I am having the same issue. It was bad enough that I had to manually go into config and tell my web browser that yes I do want to use the extensions that I’ve installed. Now, even though I have set xpinstall.signatures.required to false my addons page is tellig me it can’t be verified and it has ceased functioning (Just flat out does not show up on the youtube page) all together.

      If I can’t install and use the extensions that I want I WILL switch over to a different browser, which would be a shame since I’ve been a happy user of Firefox since back when Firefox was very first starting out.