ابحث في الدعم

Avoid support scams. We will never ask you to call or text a phone number or share personal information. Please report suspicious activity using the “Report Abuse” option.

Learn More

Lost v68 incompatible extensions

  • 3 ردود
  • 1 has this problem
  • 1 view
  • آخر ردّ كتبه stdedos

more options

I thought that updating to v68 (like all previous updates) would be 2 minutes. So I routinely accepted the update.

I have wasted 3 hours counting.

For a reason or another, "old" extensions which I use got blocked. I tried to downgrade a previous release. Apparently, here https://archive.mozilla.org/pub/thunderbird/releases/ there is none available except 8 (!!) major versions before: Dir 60.9.1/ Dir 63.0b1/ Dir 64.0b1/ Dir 64.0b2/ Dir 64.0b3/ Dir 64.0b4/ Dir 65.0b1/ Dir 65.0b2/ Dir 65.0b3/ Dir 65.0b4/ Dir 66.0b1/ Dir 66.0b2/ Dir 66.0b3/ Dir 67.0b1/ Dir 67.0b2/ Dir 67.0b3/

I tried downgrading to v67. No luck, it would not pickup my profile (and there there was this known issue of customizing "From:" address). I tried downgrading to v66. "All good", but then my extensions disappeared, and the few supported ones were "unsupported".

I panickly tried to open v68 to at least write down the list of my extensions, and try to manually download them again. They disappeared. There is none of the files https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/unable-install-add-on-extension-theme-thunderbird#w_corrupt-extension-files listed here, nor .xpi files stored anywhere.

I thought that updating to v68 (like all previous updates) would be 2 minutes. So I routinely accepted the update. I have wasted 3 hours counting. For a reason or another, "old" extensions which I use got blocked. I tried to downgrade a previous release. Apparently, here https://archive.mozilla.org/pub/thunderbird/releases/ there is none available except 8 (!!) major versions before: Dir 60.9.1/ Dir 63.0b1/ Dir 64.0b1/ Dir 64.0b2/ Dir 64.0b3/ Dir 64.0b4/ Dir 65.0b1/ Dir 65.0b2/ Dir 65.0b3/ Dir 65.0b4/ Dir 66.0b1/ Dir 66.0b2/ Dir 66.0b3/ Dir 67.0b1/ Dir 67.0b2/ Dir 67.0b3/ I tried downgrading to v67. No luck, it would not pickup my profile (and there there was this known issue of customizing "From:" address). I tried downgrading to v66. "All good", but then my extensions disappeared, and the few supported ones were "unsupported". I panickly tried to open v68 to at least write down the list of my extensions, and try to manually download them again. They disappeared. There is none of the files https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/unable-install-add-on-extension-theme-thunderbird#w_corrupt-extension-files listed here, nor .xpi files stored anywhere.

All Replies (3)

more options

Perhaps look again here https://archive.mozilla.org/pub/thunderbird/releases/

I just clicked the link and the list starts with version .1 (so before the first public release) and up to version 73 beta 2 and everything in between. If you are seeing something else, that might suggest a problem with Chrome. Firefox is still a free download.

I have no idea what you have done with your chasing around, just be aware that there was no true release versions between V60 and V68. There were builds, but they were not released as Thunderbird only does a release inline with Firefox ESR versions. So they have gone 52,60 and not 68. Thunderbird next will be 70 something, 78 I think.

Were you asked to configure your accounts again? I can only hope you were as this should fix that. https://thunderbirdtweaks.blogspot.com/2019/09/i-lost-my-profilemail-on-update-to.html

more options
So they have gone 52,60 and not 68.

I suppose this should have been 'So they have gone 52,60 and now 68.'?

more options

Matt said

Perhaps look again here https://archive.mozilla.org/pub/thunderbird/releases/ I just clicked the link and the list starts with version .1 (so before the first public release) and up to version 73 beta 2 and everything in between. If you are seeing something else, that might suggest a problem with Chrome. Firefox is still a free download.

I merely copy-pasted the "relevant" part (i.e. `6\d` builds). Blame site's text-field parsing for that weird output