Hi!
I’ve tried to upload my addon unlisted but it everytime says duplicate UUID found.
The addon some time already in the addon store but i’ve deleted it, now i cannot upload it again.
Name: Better Battlelog
UUID: jid1-qQSMEVsYTOjgYA@jetpack
I am facing the same problem, but perhaps for a different reason.
I wish to distribute my add-on, FireBible, both on my own site and through AMO. When I try to upload the binary for signing (with the “do not list” option checked), I get a duplicate UUID error.
I need a signed version of my add-on in preparation for Firefox 40 so I can continue to distribute it from my website; I do not wish to de-list it from AMO either as I want to use both channels for distribution. What can I do to get the binary just signed?
The version currently public on AMO (and which has been preliminarily reviewed and signed) has been broken for a long time, the updated version which does work, doesn’t look like it will reach review stage for another 2 months - missing the FF 40 deadline. It is currently position 114 - was 199 when originally submitted over 2 months ago.
Assistance appreciated!
@BrainFooLong that is a known thing. Best bet would be to either ask for help on #amo-editors or email amo-editors@mozilla.org although I think the solution is you’ll need to use a new UUID.
@brianfernandes first, it’ll only be a warning in 40, and barely a warning at that. It shows up only in about:addons and will just say “FireBible has not been verified for use in Firefox. Proceed with caution.” Second, the review queue is accelerating. It is still somewhat slow, but it’s getting faster every week. Third, you’ll need a new UUID for the unlisted version.
Ok, thanks than. Weird 
Jared,
Thanks for the quick reply - glad to know it’s not being enforced in 40. In this post, I noted “preference to disable the signing requirement”, which led me to believe that users must explicitly disable this for 40, and it will be impossible to do so in 41.
On to your suggestion to use a new UUID for the unlisted version, won’t a new UUID effectively make this a new extension and break updates for all users who have installed the extension from my site? I have been distributing this extension from my site for ~ 7 years and have at least a few thousand users, so I would definitely like to avoid a break.
Please correct me if I’ve misunderstood - any suggestions?
There’s an update to the newest information at the top of that blog post, it all got pushed back one version, for now.
Yes it will make a it a new extension. They’re basically changing how things are done, and it feels to me like they are trying to get more centralization. I’m not sure if you can download the listed version from AMO and use it on your site, or not, so tagging @jorgev to help clear things up.
Thanks for clearing up that up.
[quote=“arenlor, post:6, topic:2830”]
I’m not sure if you can download the listed version from AMO and use it on your site, or not
[/quote] In the version off my site, update related info (updateURL, updateKey) is added to the manifest to allow the updates to function, this must be removed before uploading the extension to AMO. So the same file will not work off my own site, at least, not in a form where the release / update lifecycle is under my control.
@jorgev, looks like I would have to choose between listing at AMO or outside - I can’t have both. Now, the signing feature for unlisted add-ons does allow the hosting of these add-ons externally, so I know Mozilla still intends to support this case (cool). Surely a situation where Mozilla continues to allows dual hosting would be better than forcing the developer to move off AMO entirely? Comments?
@BrainFooLong Please comment on this bug report with the add-on ID. We’ll be restoring those previously deleted add-ons soon.
@brianfernandes It would be nice to support dual hosting, but it’s impossible at the moment. I don’t expect us to implement it anytime soon, since it’s a very complex thing to get right. It’s been requested a couple of times, so we will definitely consider it.