Install/update ActualBudget based on releases, not latest master

[SpyrosRoum]

✍️ Description

I noticed that ActualBudget gets installed by just git clone/git pull, which (unless I am missing something) means that it's always on latest master branch instead of following stable releases.
This PR fixes this and switches to using the latest stable based on tagged releases.

I'd like to note that I didn't find or create any related issues/discussions, since the change was small I went ahead and implemented it without asking. If there are any concerns with this (or with the implementation) please let me know.

I'm also marking this as a breaking change since if someone is on the latest master an "update" would actually downgrade them. Syncing this with the next release might be a good idea.

---

🛠️ Type of Change

Please check the relevant options:

• Bug fix (non-breaking change that resolves an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change that adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change unexpectedly)
• New script (a fully functional and thoroughly tested script or set of scripts)

---

✅ Prerequisites

The following steps must be completed for the pull request to be considered:

• Self-review performed (I have reviewed my code to ensure it follows established patterns and conventions.)
• Testing performed (I have thoroughly tested my changes and verified expected functionality.)
• Documentation updated (I have updated any relevant documentation)

---

📋 Additional Information (optional)

Provide any extra context or screenshots about the feature or fix here.

[MickLesk]

Better to Switch to stable Release with .zip File Like other Scripts

[SpyrosRoum]

I did the switch to tarball but I'm not happy with the update process.

It's worth noting that the docs for actual do simply use git for installation/updating and I'm now wondering if it might be better to revert to git + checkout the latest tag.

Any suggestions?

[remz1337]

Important is to make it work, and if the official recommended installation method is through git, I don't see it has an issue. If the maintainers of ActualBudget say to install through git, they may not always publish releases and only create tags, so we can avoid potential future issues too.

[michelroegl-brunner]

We avoided it on all other scripts to pull directly from git, as we had a fair share of issues with it as well.

[SpyrosRoum]

We avoided it on all other scripts to pull directly from git, as we had a fair share of issues with it as well.

What kind of issue were there? The script in its current for just pulls from github

[michelroegl-brunner]

We had some issues, mostly only updates, where the files differ and the git pull fails because it wants to merge.

[SpyrosRoum]

That makes sense.

However, I consider this to not be an issue here for a few reasons:

1. The only file created and edited by us/the user is the .env file. This is not tracked by git.
2. Like I said we already use git, my edit was to checkout a tag. (check my first commit if you didn't see it)
3. The ActualBudget team suggests using git when deploying without docker. (They only mention doing a git pull and they don't mention tags, but I'm considering doing a PR for their docs to change that if they want)

With all that said, if you think the latest commit that uses tarballs is good, feel free to suggest changes/improvements or (squash) commit

[michelroegl-brunner]

Changes look good to me. I just wanted to explain why we do it this way.