intrigeri:
>> Not enough memory available
>> ---------------------------
>
> Applied, but I had to turn the bullet list into something else, and
> </br> into newline, since zenity can't display these. This gives:
>
> Not enough memory available to check for upgrades.
>
> Make sure this system satisfies the requirements for running Tails.
> See file:///usr/share/doc/tails/website/doc/about/requirements/index.en.html.
>
> Try to restart Tails and upgrade again.
>
> Or do a manual upgrade.
> See https://tails.boum.org/doc/first_steps/upgrade#manual
Too bad. But your solution is fine...
>> #1. Upgrade available
>> ---------------------
>
> Applied, but no bullet lists again, so:
>
> "You should upgrade to %{name}s %{version}s.\n\n".
> "For more information about this new version, go to %{details_url}s.\n\n".
> "It is recommended to close all the open applications during the upgrade.\n".
> "Downloading the upgrade might take a long time, from several minutes to a few hours.\n".
> "The networking will be disabled after downloading the upgrade.\n\n".
> "Download size: %{size}s\n\n".
> "Do you want to upgrade now?"
>
>> XXX: Round the download size.
>
> Why not. Please create an "easy" ticket for that, making it clear to
> which precision you think it should be rounded. Not a blocker IMHO.
Will do.
>> XXX: Use MB instead of MiB?
>
> I think I remember reading that the sensible people around here are
> migrating to the less ambiguous MiB (and friends), and trying to make
> their units consistent system-wide. I may be wrong. Is it serious
> enough that I should research this further, or?
Absolutely not. I was surprised by this unit but if you think that's the
way forward. Then I'm fine with that.
>> XXX: The link shouldn't be clickable if you cannot click on it.
>> People can do almost the same copy paste operation, or copy it
>> manually.
>
> I'm not totally convinced, as I do like to right-click -> copy link
> address, but well, OK, applied :)
I'm not against right-click but I'm really against the link pretending
being clickable when it is not.
>> XXX: Does it make sense to add the URL in the debugging information as
>> it might already be in the stderr?
>
> Assuming you've actually checked it is in the stderr, I've applied the
> proposed phrasing (without the URL).
Yes, it was in the stderr I got.
