Bug #11101

Consider not shipping the Installation Assistant in the ISO

Added by intrigeri about 4 years ago. Updated over 3 years ago.

Target version:
Start date:
Due date:
% Done:


Feature Branch:
Type of work:
Affected tool:
Installation Assistant


Tails includes a local copy of the website, which currently includes the IA. From my perspective, it slows down the ISO build, while great parts or all of it are not useful from inside Tails. Also, regarding the development, QA and release process: I'm under the impression that this tool is managed as one we can update whenever we want by pushing to master, rather than as something that will be frozen and used as-is, from inside Tails, for the next 6 weeks.

So perhaps we should add /install to excludes?

Granted, this also raises the question of building the website locally, e.g. for doc writers and translators: these people do need to build /install. I think we need to use different ikiwiki configuration for these different use cases. One option would be to keep the default ikiwiki*.setup suitable for doc and translation work, and to override the settings we want, via command-line options, when building the website for inclusion into an ISO.

I don't know how broken internal links should be handled, if we exclude the IA from the ISO build. But IMO a broken link is better than a link to a page that has great chances not to work, so I don't see it as a regression.

Related issues

Related to Tails - Bug #6586: Broken "blueprints" links in local documentation Confirmed 01/09/2014


#1 Updated by intrigeri about 4 years ago

  • Assignee set to sajolida
  • QA Check set to Info Needed

Is there a very simple reason that makes my idea stupid or irrelevant, that I missed? (before we spend time discussing this further)

#2 Updated by sajolida over 3 years ago

  • Assignee deleted (sajolida)
  • QA Check deleted (Info Needed)

Sorry for taking so long to answer on this one.

I tried the download page from inside Tails and indeed DAVE doesn't work from there (I'm not sure why).

I couldn't think of any "very simple reason that makes [your] idea stupid or irrelevant". But I have to confess that I feel extremelly lazy to further investigate the possible consequences of that and I'm not interested in investigating or implementing this myself.

#3 Updated by sajolida over 3 years ago

  • Related to Bug #6586: Broken "blueprints" links in local documentation added

#4 Updated by intrigeri over 3 years ago

  • Priority changed from Normal to Low
  • Type of work changed from Discuss to Website

Thanks! On the one hand it feels wrong to point users at tools that we know don't work. OTOH I'm not aware of any actual complaint about it (except by developers wrt. increase ISO build time), so it may not be worth the effort. So I'm setting this as low-priority, i.e. something that we don't feel like doing but would be nice to have.

Also available in: Atom PDF