Feature #6871
FAQ: Unetbootin is not a supported installation method
100%
Description
Many people keep on asking for help after using Unetbooting to install Tails.
Subtasks
Related issues
Related to Tails - |
Resolved | 2015-03-26 |
History
#1 Updated by sajolida 2014-04-14 14:03:49
- Subject changed from FAQ: Unetbootin is not a supported installation method to Unetbootin is not a supported installation method
- Category set to 208
#2 Updated by BitingBird 2015-01-07 16:57:34
- Category set to Installation
#3 Updated by intrigeri 2015-01-10 09:48:32
- Affected tool deleted (
FAQ)
#4 Updated by BitingBird 2015-01-28 15:01:30
Where should we put that? In the FAQ, in the install doc, in the known issues?
#5 Updated by BitingBird 2015-01-31 11:44:11
- Assignee set to sajolida
- QA Check set to Info Needed
#6 Updated by sajolida 2015-03-02 11:41:55
- Assignee deleted (
sajolida)
I’d say FAQ. Giving more info on why unetbootin is not “supported” would be important I think. But I’m not sure about the answer myself…
#7 Updated by BitingBird 2015-03-02 22:36:17
- Subject changed from Unetbootin is not a supported installation method to FAQ: Unetbootin is not a supported installation method
- Assignee set to BitingBird
- QA Check deleted (
Info Needed)
I’ll try a minimalist version, and we can complete when we have more info. I’ll probably list most frequent unsupported install technics that people use.
#8 Updated by intrigeri 2015-03-03 10:46:30
> But I’m not sure about the answer myself…
I assume that unetbootin will use its own version of syslinux, instead of the one that we ship in the ISO filesystem => there will be a version mismatch between the syslinux installed in the MBR, and the syslinux modules it tries to load => won’t boot. Also, nobody has checked so far if/how unetbootin tweaks the parameters we pass to the kernel. If it does, then it can result in dangerous behaviour.
We have a hard time already tracking how UUI works (or not) for us, not to add one more such piece of software to evaluate and track. So perhaps the safest thing to do is to state that it’s unsupported because… we don’t have time to support it.
#9 Updated by BitingBird 2015-03-14 20:31:44
- Target version set to Tails_1.3.2
- Feature Branch changed from to bitingbird:faq/6871-unetbootin_unsupported
#10 Updated by BitingBird 2015-03-14 20:45:11
- Status changed from Confirmed to In Progress
- Assignee changed from BitingBird to sajolida
- QA Check set to Ready for QA
Did a minimalist version, because I don’t think the technical explanations would help the users. Built, look good. Please review and merge :)
#11 Updated by BitingBird 2015-03-19 14:31:14
- Target version changed from Tails_1.3.2 to Tails_1.4
#12 Updated by BitingBird 2015-03-26 13:49:18
- related to
Bug #9115: Chroot browsers don't work when Tails is manually installed with YUMI added
#13 Updated by BitingBird 2015-03-26 13:50:37
- Assignee changed from sajolida to BitingBird
- QA Check changed from Ready for QA to Dev Needed
I’ll add Bug #9115 in the same branch before asking for merge.
#14 Updated by BitingBird 2015-03-28 23:16:09
- Assignee changed from BitingBird to sajolida
- QA Check changed from Dev Needed to Ready for QA
Pushed, please review and merge (and close both tickets with one stone :))
#15 Updated by intrigeri 2015-04-04 11:06:06
Applied in changeset commit:c754d607ac1091b931b432d6c8d0a20dd56852b5.
#16 Updated by intrigeri 2015-04-04 11:06:08
Applied in changeset commit:cf64c1a61a0bdfca0d219c4db8a9a7f6e9208a59.
#17 Updated by intrigeri 2015-04-04 11:06:10
Applied in changeset commit:e3c71ab014070a1750945f0077a31aec2cb31acd.
#18 Updated by intrigeri 2015-04-04 11:06:11
- Status changed from In Progress to Resolved
- % Done changed from 0 to 100
Applied in changeset commit:f9aace81ee09b87c04652a64149fe273f480eb5f.
#19 Updated by intrigeri 2015-04-04 11:08:30
- Assignee deleted (
sajolida) - QA Check changed from Ready for QA to Pass
Polished a little bit, merged, thanks!