Bug #7593

Document if browser addons can be saved in persistent volume

Added by Anonymous 2014-07-14 15:25:26 . Updated 2015-04-04 18:20:18 .

Status:
Resolved
Priority:
Elevated
Assignee:
Category:
Persistence
Target version:
Tails_1.4
Start date:
2014-07-14
Due date:
% Done:

100%

Feature Branch:
bitingbird:doc/7593-persistence_limits
Type of work:
End-user documentation
Blueprint:

Starter:
0
Affected tool:
Browser
Deliverable for:

Description

It is not clearly stated in the documentation if browser plugins are part of the “dotfiles” or not.
Browser bookmarks have a separate entry on the page.
https://tails.boum.org/doc/first_steps/persistence/configure/index.en.html

Subtasks

History

#1 Updated by intrigeri 2014-07-15 10:25:02

Indeed, the “Can I install other add-ons in the browser?” section in the FAQ points to the “Warnings about persistence” page, which suggests it can be made persistent, which is only correct (without more effort) for the add-ons that are available in Debian.

#2 Updated by Anonymous 2014-07-16 23:05:19

  • Assignee deleted (None)

Should this information go to the FAQ and then we can put a link to the FAQ from the persistence documentation?

Assigning this ticket to myself, for the convenience of getting this done at some point :)

#3 Updated by sajolida 2014-07-17 20:44:40

I think this should be a short addition to this FAQ entry.

#4 Updated by sajolida 2014-07-19 20:42:41

> Should this information go to the FAQ and then we can put a link to the FAQ from the persistence documentation?

I’m not sure about starting the creation of a list of what is not in
persistence, in the persistence documentation. On top of the current
FAQ, browser plugins are already mentioned in the warnings about
persistence:

https://tails.boum.org/doc/first_steps/persistence/warnings/#index4h1

Maybe those can be improved as well to mention that it is not possible
to make them persistence easily anyway at the moment.

If we think this is not enough and want to have another pointed to that
information, then we could point the Browser documentation to the
warnings about persistence:

https://tails.boum.org/doc/anonymous_internet/Tor_Browser/

#5 Updated by BitingBird 2014-07-19 21:54:34

  • Category set to 208

I agree this should be documented, that’s a frequent question.

#6 Updated by Anonymous 2014-08-10 13:50:35

So we’ll go with the FAQ i take it?

#7 Updated by Anonymous 2014-08-10 14:05:31

  • Type of work changed from Documentation to Discuss

Rereading the FAQ, i have the feeling that this is not the right place to add this information.

I have seen that in the design document it is mentioned: https://tails.boum.org/contribute/design/persistence/

If I would be a user looking for this info, i would look here: https://tails.boum.org/doc/first_steps/persistence/configure/index.en.html
So i think it could be mentioned in the last pararaph: “Additional software packages”
“Browser addons cannot be made persistent unless installed through the additional software package feature.”

What do you think?

#8 Updated by sajolida 2014-08-10 18:54:29

Having this explained in the “Additional software packages” suggests that it is ok to install additional add-ons if they come from Debian. Which is not true. So actually, I’m quite against putting that trick on the website at all.

But I understand your concern about having the information easy to find.

So what about:

- At the beginning of /doc/first_steps/persistence/configure#index3h1 putting a sentence that explains that everything that is not explicitly in this list cannot be made persistent, a list of the most frequently requested features and a link to https://labs.riseup.net/code/projects/tails/issues?query_id=122.
- Putting a link to the FAQ section about the browser from the browser doc.

#9 Updated by Anonymous 2014-08-10 20:39:15

sajolida wrote:
> Having this explained in the “Additional software packages” suggests that it is ok to install additional add-ons if they come from Debian. Which is not true. So actually, I’m quite against putting that trick on the website at all.

ACK.

> But I understand your concern about having the information easy to find.
>
> So what about:
>
> - At the beginning of /doc/first_steps/persistence/configure#index3h1 putting a sentence that explains that everything that is not explicitly in this list cannot be made persistent, a list of the most frequently requested features and a link to https://labs.riseup.net/code/projects/tails/issues?query_id=122.

Great idea.

> - Putting a link to the FAQ section about the browser from the browser doc.

Ack.

#10 Updated by BitingBird 2014-08-11 15:08:00

  • Type of work changed from Discuss to Documentation

ACK too, changing type of work to Documentation :)

#11 Updated by BitingBird 2014-10-17 10:46:22

  • Status changed from New to Confirmed

#12 Updated by intrigeri 2015-01-10 09:47:39

  • Category set to Persistence
  • Affected tool changed from FAQ to Browser

#13 Updated by BitingBird 2015-03-15 23:08:42

u, do you still plan to work on this, or could I steal it from you?

#14 Updated by Anonymous 2015-03-16 06:42:58

  • Assignee set to BitingBird

I’m glad if you do that! Thanks :)

#15 Updated by BitingBird 2015-03-17 14:42:05

  • Status changed from Confirmed to In Progress
  • Feature Branch set to bitingbird:doc/7593-persistence_limits

#16 Updated by BitingBird 2015-03-17 14:42:17

  • Target version set to Tails_1.3.2

#17 Updated by BitingBird 2015-03-17 15:15:47

  • Assignee changed from BitingBird to sajolida
  • QA Check set to Ready for QA

Mentioned in persistence doc that only listed features can be made persistent + listed usual asked features, with links.

Also added a link in Tor Browser doc to the FAQ about it.

Built, looks good - please review :)

#18 Updated by BitingBird 2015-04-01 12:37:04

  • Priority changed from Normal to Elevated
  • Target version changed from Tails_1.3.2 to Tails_1.4

Postponing -> raising priority

#19 Updated by intrigeri 2015-04-04 10:34:06

  • Assignee changed from sajolida to BitingBird
  • % Done changed from 0 to 30
  • QA Check changed from Ready for QA to Dev Needed

I’ve had a look. It looks good, except:

  • the link to https://labs.riseup.net/code/projects/tails/issues?query_id=122 is missing
  • I’m not convinced by the phrasing about the top-requested persistence features (currently: "Many users ask for more features () — I don’t think that the message we want to convey on that page is this one. Rather, I would like it to convey the fact that quite a few new persistence features have been requested already, have been ACK’ed as something we’d like to see, and are thus tracked in Redmine already. The main goal being to avoid receiving tons of duplicate feature requests through various means… and possibly even getting people to work on such tasks. What do you think?

#20 Updated by BitingBird 2015-04-04 13:35:34

  • Assignee changed from BitingBird to intrigeri
  • QA Check changed from Dev Needed to Ready for QA

Improved, built and looks good, please review again :)

#21 Updated by intrigeri 2015-04-04 18:10:58

  • Status changed from In Progress to Resolved
  • % Done changed from 30 to 100

Applied in changeset commit:64971916161fa8ef08011c621941624d67f49353.

#22 Updated by intrigeri 2015-04-04 18:20:18

  • Assignee deleted (intrigeri)
  • QA Check changed from Ready for QA to Pass

Added a few minor polish commits on top and pushed, thanks!