Tails Installer 5.0 proposes to upgrade even if the destination stick is already up-to-date
Previously the user would choose themselves in the splash screen what operation they wanted to do, so if they selected “Upgrade” they would not be surprised when they were proposed to upgrade the destination stick, even if it was already up-to-date.
Now, we autodetect that the destination device already has Tails, and when it’s the case we automatically propose the user to “Ugrade” it, which has been confusing for at least one user.
I don’t know how severe this is. I would suggest asking Help Desk if they got reports about it. Feel free to triage this out of
Feature #9005 if you want.
The aforementioned report suggests solutions, not sure what they’re worth. Note that fixing this might be tricky, in particular when one considers the case when the destination device has a nightly build installed (it’ll always tell it’s the next version of Tails, while it’s older).
Related to Tails -
Related to Tails -
|Blocked by Tails - Bug #8862: Display version number of destination device in Tails Installer||Confirmed||2015-02-04|
#1 Updated by Anonymous 2018-01-15 15:29:42
- Assignee set to sajolida
- Type of work changed from Code to User interface design
As this is a result of
Feature #9005, I’m leaving the ticket here for the time being. I think @sajolida should first have a look from an UX point of view before we can write code to fix this issue. Assigning this to him, so he can decide how to continue.
#5 Updated by sajolida 2018-01-19 16:34:06
I think that the proper solution for that goes through Bug #8862. Once we’re able to display the version number in Tails Installer:
- Users will be able to tell before attempting the upgrade that it’s not needed.
- Tails Installer will be able to know the Tails version of a USB stick.
> note that Bug #14958 will require mounting these filesystems as well, if we ever want to address it; I seem
> to remember there’s a way to temporary disable these notifications (that we already display sometimes),
> not sure if it’s real and suitable here; in any case I’m pretty sure the resulting code will make an
> ugly, hard to understand/debug part of the code even worse;
Then it might not be worth it…
So I feel like we need to discuss possible solutions to Bug #8862 first.