TAILMON TAILMON v1.1.1 -Jul 26, 2025- WireGuard-based Tailscale Installer, Configurator and Monitor (Now available in AMTM!) TAILMON v1.2.02 Beta!

[Viktor Jaep]

No issues with the beta. Script automatically downgraded overnight to stable but I updated back to beta again. Suspect the same will happen again tonight but that's okay. AOK either way!

Well, if automatically downgrading to stable it would be a bug. Switching should be a manual step.

@rung Yeah, if you're going to upgrade to the beta, I'd probably advise keeping the autoupdate feature off. Definitely higher risk of something going wrong, so you probably want to manually upgrade that along the way.

The script is unidirectional... if it sees a version in the repository that's different than the one that's currently running, it's going to assume it's newer.

 

[Stephen Harrington]

Yeah, if you're going to upgrade to the beta, I'd probably advise keeping the autoupdate feature off.

Got bitten by this as well overnight @Viktor Jaep
Something to consider may be separating out the binary and script auto-updates, or just ditching the script auto-updates and letting AMTM update checking system handle the notification?

 

[swejuggalo]

@rung Yeah, if you're going to upgrade to the beta, I'd probably advise keeping the autoupdate feature off. Definitely higher risk of something going wrong, so you probably want to manually upgrade that along the way.

The script is unidirectional... if it sees a version in the repository that's different than the one that's currently running, it's going to assume it's newer.

It goes by build date rather than the number? Trying it out at the moment.

"U(P)date Tailscale Binary to latest version" sees the beta as the newest, right? Without ever suggesting stable build? But auto update, don't?
I don't mind to manually do the updates, as long as I get informed about updates I can go and fetch.

 

[Viktor Jaep]

It goes by build date rather than the number? Trying it out at the moment.

Do you mean the TAILMON script, or the Tailscale binaries?

"U(P)date Tailscale Binary to latest version" sees the beta as the newest, right? Without ever suggesting stable build? But auto update, don't?
I don't mind to manually do the updates, as long as I get informed about updates I can go and fetch.

U(P)date Tailscale Binary to latest version essentially runs "tailscale update" -- it's only going to fetch the most stable version, and may overwrite a Tailscale binary beta that you have installed. That would require a test to see what actually happens.

Update Tailscale to the latest (B)ETA essentially runs "tailscale update --track unstable", so that would update whatever beta you're on to the next newest beta of the Tailscale binaries.

 

[Viktor Jaep]

Got bitten by this as well overnight @Viktor Jaep
Something to consider may be separating out the binary and script auto-updates, or just ditching the script auto-updates and letting AMTM update checking system handle the notification?

I like the idea of splitting these out. Man, you're always full of great ideas, @Stephen Harrington!

 

[Stephen Harrington]

I like the idea of splitting these out. Man, you're always full of great ideas

Got to keep thinking up things to keep you busy and use up all that spare time you have.

 

[Viktor Jaep]

I don't mind to manually do the updates, as long as I get informed about updates I can go and fetch.

But yeah, it does look like I can figure out if a new beta comes out, and could fire off an email that a new version can be downloaded.

 

[swejuggalo]

Do you mean the TAILMON script, or the Tailscale binaries?


U(P)date Tailscale Binary to latest version essentially runs "tailscale update" -- it's only going to fetch the most stable version, and may overwrite a Tailscale binary beta that you have installed. That would require a test to see what actually happens.

Update Tailscale to the latest (B)ETA essentially runs "tailscale update --track unstable", so that would update whatever beta you're on to the next newest beta of the Tailscale binaries.

Typing P get me this.

Messages:
Executing: tailscale update
already running unstable version 1.87.12; no update needed
Restart Tailscale?
[y/n]:

It seems to not think that it needs to install the last stable. But if new stable comes with a different date it might?

That makes me wonder why auto update thinks it needs to update Tailscale, every night (?), with that response with the manual check.

As for the update notice, for the script itself, AMTM can do that. But tailmon need to inform about Tail scale. Best of both worlds. Then I got all I need

 

[Viktor Jaep]

Typing P get me this.

Messages:
Executing: tailscale update
already running unstable version 1.87.12; no update needed
Restart Tailscale?
[y/n]:

Oh that's very interesting. It seems to stay on the unstable track even with that command.

It seems to not think that it needs to install the last stable. But if new stable comes with a different date it might?

Not sure. Let us know!

That makes me wonder why auto update thinks it needs to update Tailscale, every night (?), with that response with the manual check.

I'm using a command: "tailscale version --upstream" to look and see what the latest version is. I wonder if that yields something different for you being on the beta? If the upstream differs from the local version, it forces an upgrade using "tailscale upgrade -yes"

As for the update notice, for the script itself, AMTM can do that. But tailmon need to inform about Tail scale. Best of both worlds. Then I got all I need

I'll see what I can figure out!

 

[Stephen Harrington]

As for the update notice, for the script itself, AMTM can do that. But tailmon need to inform about Tail scale. Best of both worlds. Then I got all I need

I agree, I think that keeps it simpler and more consistent with other AMTM scripts including the collective *MONs, to just do auto-update on the TS binary if user desires to configure it that way, but let AMTM advise if there is an update available for the script itself (for the usual manual update)?