FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 10-14-2010, 01:02 PM
Lars Seipel
 
Default Ubuntu 10.10's installer looks rather nice

On Tuesday 12 October 2010 21:28:24 Evan Dandrea wrote:

> You absolutely can automate it, using the same preseeding mechanism found
> in debian-installer.

Thanks for the info. Didn't know Debian preseeding can be used with the Ubuntu
live installer as well. That boosts usability to another level when installing
on more than one computer is desired and other techniques aren't feasible.

Lars.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 10-14-2010, 02:49 PM
Przemek Klosowski
 
Default Ubuntu 10.10's installer looks rather nice

On 10/13/2010 05:51 PM, Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 22:26:18 +0200, Gilboa Davara wrote
>
>> As you pointed out, different drives, can have more-or-less identical
>> partition size, with different CHS in the partition table.
>
> I my experience the hard disk vendors have been astonishingly coordinated
> in how much sectors a drive of a given size should have.

Total numbers of sectors may be the same---but the way the partitions
are defined in the partition table requires the use of correct CHS disk
geometry. Of course modern disks don't even have a well-defined physical
geometry---the number of sectors per cylinder varies between the inner
and outer tracks---but they still must declare one as a weird historical
artifact required by the BIOS and traditional partition table layout.
The manufacturers lie about it, e.g. declaring dozens of heads, but
what's worse different manufacturers lie about it differently.

Warning: what follows is boring and geeky, and might be wrong because a)
I haven't worked with this stuff for a while now and b) things change as
the disks get biger and newer.

The reason the partition table has to represent the partition boundaries
not as a Linear Block Address (LBA) sector count but as a
Cylinder/Head/Sector coordinates, is because the BIOS booting code uses
CHS access method. If those numbers assume wrong disk geometry
then the partition ends up being non-contiguous because IIRC, the
calculation from CHS to LBA goes somehow like this:

LBA = c * (H*S) + h * S + s

where c, h, s are the CHS coordinates of a partition in the partition
table, and C, H and S are the total 'reported' number of cylinders,
heads and sectors on the drive. If you copy the chs numbers without
converting them for the different CHS geometry, you will get different
and wrong LBA addresses, i.e. different partitioning.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 10-14-2010, 04:32 PM
Lars Seipel
 
Default Ubuntu 10.10's installer looks rather nice

On Tuesday 12 October 2010 15:56:02 Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
> Now we are really talking semantics. The point is that users should not be
> confronted with choices they don't really need to make or they don't
> understand.

I disagree. How should a user know about some nice feature if its whole
existence is hidden from his eyes? Yeah, he should read the documentation but
aren't we talking about improving usability right now? Imagine some random
user does his installs the hard way for years and now discovers (someone tells
him oder he learns about it by chance by searching the documentation for an
unrelated problem) that Anaconda has the capabilities to make his life easier.

He goes like: "Woow cool, this is the stuff I've been searching for years. I
don't have to waste my precious time anymore by setting all of this up by
hand. Anaconda now takes care of it. Didn't thought those Anaconda developers
are that genious. But why on earth didn't they tell me before their software
was capable of doing that? Do they actually like watching people suffer?
Seriously, you guys suck!"

Hiding features doesn't have to be beneficial to usability. It can be harmful,
too.

> As long as most of these defaults and menus are not displayed initially
> that would probably be fine.
> The problem here is that every time you present the user with data dumps
> (e.g. lists of defaults) or menus you create a cognitive hurdle where the
> user wonders what he's supposed to do or gets worried that he breaks
> something. Minimizing that is really key to creating a streamlined
> installation interface.

There are other ways to prevent confusion and worries about potential
brokenness. If there are sane defaults and it is clearly communicated to the
user that using those is the recommended way and gives him the best results in
most cases, I don't see a problem. If users can trust in those defaults being
sane and that by not touching them they get a good default configuration, they
aren't helpless as they know what to do. However, if they wish to change
something in future attempts they already know where they have to look.

> new installed system. The user doesn't care at all about "partitions",
> "LVM" or "mountpoints".

I think you are strongly limiting the definition of what an user can be. So who
is an user of Anaconda? For me, that is all those people using Anaconda. There
is some guy from your neighborhood installing Fedora to surf the internet.
There is some developer installing Fedora to work on the latest and greatest
software in the GNU/Linux/X/freedesktop.org stack. There are designers using
Anaconda to install the free software they need to create your favorite
layout. There are also sysadmins deploying Fedora/RHEL/CentOS to many
computers in their company, a public school or at your ISP's datacenter. So
when you restrict Anaconda's userbase to just one kind of user, the whole
assumption on which you build your enhancements to usability is wrong and will
lead to software which sucks in usability as soon as you want to do something
that you didn't consider basic enough to show it to users.

Lars.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 10-14-2010, 05:05 PM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default Ubuntu 10.10's installer looks rather nice

On 10/12/2010 03:56 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
> On 10/12/2010 02:52 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 10/12/2010 02:16 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
>>> On 10/12/2010 10:28 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>>> Striving for usability and pleasantness for the untechnical users certainly is
>>>>> a good thing. It gets problematic when you choose to make things technically
>>>>> inferior just to please those kind of users.
>>>>
>>>> We don't have to make things inferior to improve usability. To stick
>>>> with the "advanved storage" example: IMHO the selection screen between
>>>> basic and advanced storage is confusing and superfluous. First it
>>>> should probably be named "local storage" and "SAN storage". Second
>>>> anaconda can default to local storage if a local disk is present (option
>>>> to add SAN storage needs to be there of course). If no local disk is
>>>> present it can go straight to SAN setup. One screen and one mouse click
>>>> less for most of the users.
>>>
>>> If you want to appeal to the same audience Ubuntu is going for then you
>>> have to remove choice.
>>
>> Why? All that would be required would be to move it out of this
>> audience's way (the "defaults").
>
> Now we are really talking semantics.
I don't think so.

> The point is that users should not be
> confronted with choices they don't really need to make or they don't
> understand.
My point is to offer users who want choice the choices they want and not
to force them into something they do not want.

>> As Gerd mentioned in another mail, SUSE's installer seems interesting
>> wrt. this. Its "defaults" cater the demands of "uneducated desktop
>> installers", while still allows many kinds of complex setups outside of
>> the "defaults" in "advanced menus".
>
> As long as most of these defaults and menus are not displayed initially
> that would probably be fine.
Please get yourself a SUSE DVD and try yourself - I was very positively
surprized, esp. about SUSE's "disk partitioner's work-flow".

It is easy to use for beginners (Click-through), while it still allows
complex setups.

> The problem here is that every time you present the user with data dumps
> (e.g. lists of defaults) or menus you create a cognitive hurdle where the
> user wonders what he's supposed to do or gets worried that he breaks
> something. Minimizing that is really key to creating a streamlined
> installation interface.
>
> The second aspect is that you want to talk to the user in terms of his
> "problem" and not in terms of the underlying technology.
Correct, ... my needs differ from that of others, ... therefore the
tools being provided by a distro need to cater my needs, otherwise the
distro doesn't fit my needs.

> For example a user
> wants to either replace the current System completely or install the
> distribution into free space on his HD and but into either the old or the
> new installed system.
Correct, that some user's demand .. but definitely not all, and could
not be further away from my demands.

> The user doesn't care at all about "partitions",
> "LVM" or "mountpoints". This is different from the more apt user who wants
> to actually have control over these details (where exactly to put
> partition(s) on the disk for example).
Correct ... The latter for instance is what I had needed. I wanted to
compare SUSE against Fedora. So I installed SUSE in parallel to other
OSes (amongst them Fedora and Windows) on to the same machine.

If my only choice would have been erase Fedora and/or Windows, ... this
distro would have disqualified itself.

> The issue here is that keeping these advanced features available could have
> a negative impact on the "easy-mode" experience.If you manage to prevent
> that from happening than more power to you but if not then creating two
> distinct workflows is really the only option.
I can't avoid to disagree.

Spawning different installers means duplicating work and wasting resource.

Ralf

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 10-14-2010, 05:14 PM
Dennis Jacobfeuerborn
 
Default Ubuntu 10.10's installer looks rather nice

On 10/14/2010 06:32 PM, Lars Seipel wrote:
> On Tuesday 12 October 2010 15:56:02 Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
>> Now we are really talking semantics. The point is that users should not be
>> confronted with choices they don't really need to make or they don't
>> understand.
>
> I disagree. How should a user know about some nice feature if its whole
> existence is hidden from his eyes? Yeah, he should read the documentation but
> aren't we talking about improving usability right now? Imagine some random
> user does his installs the hard way for years and now discovers (someone tells
> him oder he learns about it by chance by searching the documentation for an
> unrelated problem) that Anaconda has the capabilities to make his life easier.
>
> He goes like: "Woow cool, this is the stuff I've been searching for years. I
> don't have to waste my precious time anymore by setting all of this up by
> hand. Anaconda now takes care of it. Didn't thought those Anaconda developers
> are that genious. But why on earth didn't they tell me before their software
> was capable of doing that? Do they actually like watching people suffer?
> Seriously, you guys suck!"

Yet most of this can be done in a much better way *after* the installation.
I'm not sure why you think cramming as many features as possible into
anaconda is a good idea. Once you've got the desktop running you have way
better means to advertise features to the user.

> Hiding features doesn't have to be beneficial to usability. It can be harmful,
> too.

Clearly if we wanted to hide *everything* we would not require a user
interface at all but some choices need to be made. The point is that a lot
of the stuff you apparently have in mind don't actually need to happen
during the installation but can happen for example as part of the
first-boot configuration.

>> As long as most of these defaults and menus are not displayed initially
>> that would probably be fine.
>> The problem here is that every time you present the user with data dumps
>> (e.g. lists of defaults) or menus you create a cognitive hurdle where the
>> user wonders what he's supposed to do or gets worried that he breaks
>> something. Minimizing that is really key to creating a streamlined
>> installation interface.
>
> There are other ways to prevent confusion and worries about potential
> brokenness. If there are sane defaults and it is clearly communicated to the
> user that using those is the recommended way and gives him the best results in
> most cases, I don't see a problem. If users can trust in those defaults being
> sane and that by not touching them they get a good default configuration, they
> aren't helpless as they know what to do. However, if they wish to change
> something in future attempts they already know where they have to look.
>
>> new installed system. The user doesn't care at all about "partitions",
>> "LVM" or "mountpoints".
>
> I think you are strongly limiting the definition of what an user can be. So who
> is an user of Anaconda? For me, that is all those people using Anaconda. There
> is some guy from your neighborhood installing Fedora to surf the internet.
> There is some developer installing Fedora to work on the latest and greatest
> software in the GNU/Linux/X/freedesktop.org stack. There are designers using
> Anaconda to install the free software they need to create your favorite
> layout. There are also sysadmins deploying Fedora/RHEL/CentOS to many
> computers in their company, a public school or at your ISP's datacenter. So
> when you restrict Anaconda's userbase to just one kind of user, the whole
> assumption on which you build your enhancements to usability is wrong and will
> lead to software which sucks in usability as soon as you want to do something
> that you didn't consider basic enough to show it to users.

The problem is that you insist on cramming all these people into one single
group and create an installer that will make everyone happy. That's just
not going to happen and it's one of the primary reason why efforts to
improve things often fail. While abstraction is good there is such a thing
as too much of it.

One perfect example is the idea that you can simply slap a traditional
desktop on one of these new tablets or smartphones and you are done. The
real genius behind what Apple accomplished wasn't some nifty technological
feat or the fact that they control both hardware and software but that they
recognized that these devices simply aren't traditional desktop PCs and as
a result need a system that is tailored to this new world rather than
simply rebranding StandardOS(tm) and putting that on there.

I think what is needed here is a similar approach were we don't try to take
the current installation process and put some lipstick on it but instead
recognize that the needs of Joe Sixpack who doesn't care about technology
but simply want to share YouTube videos, manage his photos and browse
Facebook are different from Mr. Admin who worries how he can separate his
/home partition from the rest of the system to make fresh installs easier
and wants to use a bridge setup so he can access his virtual machines from
elsewhere.

I simply don't find the idea that we must bother Joe Sixpack with all these
options simply because we *must* have a single installer that work for
everyone very appealing because it makes innovation much harder.

Regards,
Dennis
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 10-14-2010, 05:28 PM
Dennis Jacobfeuerborn
 
Default Ubuntu 10.10's installer looks rather nice

On 10/14/2010 07:05 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 10/12/2010 03:56 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
>> On 10/12/2010 02:52 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>> On 10/12/2010 02:16 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
>>>> On 10/12/2010 10:28 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>> Striving for usability and pleasantness for the untechnical users certainly is
>>>>>> a good thing. It gets problematic when you choose to make things technically
>>>>>> inferior just to please those kind of users.
>>>>>
>>>>> We don't have to make things inferior to improve usability. To stick
>>>>> with the "advanved storage" example: IMHO the selection screen between
>>>>> basic and advanced storage is confusing and superfluous. First it
>>>>> should probably be named "local storage" and "SAN storage". Second
>>>>> anaconda can default to local storage if a local disk is present (option
>>>>> to add SAN storage needs to be there of course). If no local disk is
>>>>> present it can go straight to SAN setup. One screen and one mouse click
>>>>> less for most of the users.
>>>>
>>>> If you want to appeal to the same audience Ubuntu is going for then you
>>>> have to remove choice.
>>>
>>> Why? All that would be required would be to move it out of this
>>> audience's way (the "defaults").
>>
>> Now we are really talking semantics.
> I don't think so.
>
>> The point is that users should not be
>> confronted with choices they don't really need to make or they don't
>> understand.
> My point is to offer users who want choice the choices they want and not
> to force them into something they do not want.
>
>>> As Gerd mentioned in another mail, SUSE's installer seems interesting
>>> wrt. this. Its "defaults" cater the demands of "uneducated desktop
>>> installers", while still allows many kinds of complex setups outside of
>>> the "defaults" in "advanced menus".
>>
>> As long as most of these defaults and menus are not displayed initially
>> that would probably be fine.
> Please get yourself a SUSE DVD and try yourself - I was very positively
> surprized, esp. about SUSE's "disk partitioner's work-flow".
>
> It is easy to use for beginners (Click-through), while it still allows
> complex setups.
>
>> The problem here is that every time you present the user with data dumps
>> (e.g. lists of defaults) or menus you create a cognitive hurdle where the
>> user wonders what he's supposed to do or gets worried that he breaks
>> something. Minimizing that is really key to creating a streamlined
>> installation interface.
>>
>> The second aspect is that you want to talk to the user in terms of his
>> "problem" and not in terms of the underlying technology.
> Correct, ... my needs differ from that of others, ... therefore the
> tools being provided by a distro need to cater my needs, otherwise the
> distro doesn't fit my needs.
>
>> For example a user
>> wants to either replace the current System completely or install the
>> distribution into free space on his HD and but into either the old or the
>> new installed system.
> Correct, that some user's demand .. but definitely not all, and could
> not be further away from my demands.
>
>> The user doesn't care at all about "partitions",
>> "LVM" or "mountpoints". This is different from the more apt user who wants
>> to actually have control over these details (where exactly to put
>> partition(s) on the disk for example).
> Correct ... The latter for instance is what I had needed. I wanted to
> compare SUSE against Fedora. So I installed SUSE in parallel to other
> OSes (amongst them Fedora and Windows) on to the same machine.
>
> If my only choice would have been erase Fedora and/or Windows, ... this
> distro would have disqualified itself.
>

For all of the above select the advanced installation. I'm not sure why you
recognize that you have very special needs for you installation yet at the
same time seem to insist to be able to use the same installation procedure
tailored to users who don't even understand a lot of the words you were
using above. Nobody is "forcing" you to do anything.

>> The issue here is that keeping these advanced features available could have
>> a negative impact on the "easy-mode" experience.If you manage to prevent
>> that from happening than more power to you but if not then creating two
>> distinct workflows is really the only option.
> I can't avoid to disagree.
>
> Spawning different installers means duplicating work and wasting resource.

Nobody is talking about spawning different installers. You'd start the same
installer but it would present you with a different workflow i.e. in the
advanced workflow you'd create your partitions manually and in the easy
workflow you select to wipe your disk or install next to you existing
windows os and anaconda would determine the necessary partitioning itself
without bothering the user.

Regards,
Dennis
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 10-15-2010, 02:36 AM
Luya Tshimbalanga
 
Default Ubuntu 10.10's installer looks rather nice

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 11/10/10 03:41 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> I installed and played with Ubuntu 10.10 over the weekend (in a VM),
> and I have to say that their installer is very smooth indeed. It's
> starting to make anaconda look distinctly clunky.
>
> Some of the things it does which are IMHO better:
>
> - starts disk formatting / copying / installing in parallel
> with asking user questions
>
> - downloads updates in parallel too
>
> - uses IP geolocation to guess the user's timezone and keyboard
> settings (it's been 100% correct for me each time)
>
> - suggests a username and hostname based on the user's real name
> (Mac OS X's installer also does this -- it's a nice touch)
>
> This is in contrast to anaconda (certainly from the live CD install)
> which seems to be a usability no-go area.
>
> Thoughts? Can we switch to their installer?
>
> Rich.
>
Looking at the installation and the documentation of Ubuntu 10.10, the
outside looks nice but the functionality is very lacking as pointed out
on many posts. AFAIK, Ubuntu installer does not have the ability to
customize installation for use needs as highlighted and can be only done
offline. I don't know if there are installer from live media that
provide more control about package to install other than extracting the
bundled applications.

What anaconda needs is more refinement and polishing as majority of
function are already in place (has the team solved issue about multiple
boot bug or recognition of other installed distributions>).

To answer the question: don't switch to that new installer.


- --
Luya Tshimbalanga
Graphic & Web Designer
E: luya@fedoraproject.org
W: http://www.thefinalzone.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMt74WAAoJEGZ+gIukWeEez4UH+wcvdTZBl8 TvStVILx2vHGF2
1L1mgvYlfyZqmvTA/B8oFaU5uId3tNCFhoeGAhWEXwhjX2R9mX8MFjI5Gf+aU5Me
A9rI2PGePvcV9jJ7B+Fohc5/61KGAYtitNZhiDq8MlBH1TMEH+HfesX3nzMvn3iV
wjDELf3dzistkprX7ERSBm+pV0auUkYIQuOlr8AapoZzhi9LaR aOW4rBORb92ATf
EfKOxu/ukicaqebrMHaMB3PaDDSXhFb/99opE+pwDG5IcwCymuMfiBT+D1g5+1vr
SYyThPcxmhd1BGmXpO8ChW/wwIYQJ32hTvixvBJCiIVSUp9AIkJSEZdRf1lllUc=
=1O1D
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 10-15-2010, 09:47 PM
Hedayat Vatankhah
 
Default Ubuntu 10.10's installer looks rather nice

Hi,




Luya
Tshimbalanga <luya@fedoraproject.org> wrote on
10/15/2010 6:06:10 AM +0350:



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 11/10/10 03:41 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:



I installed and played with Ubuntu 10.10 over the weekend (in a VM),
and I have to say that their installer is very smooth indeed. It's
starting to make anaconda look distinctly clunky.

Some of the things it does which are IMHO better:

- starts disk formatting / copying / installing in parallel
with asking user questions

- downloads updates in parallel too

- uses IP geolocation to guess the user's timezone and keyboard
settings (it's been 100% correct for me each time)

- suggests a username and hostname based on the user's real name
(Mac OS X's installer also does this -- it's a nice touch)

This is in contrast to anaconda (certainly from the live CD install)
which seems to be a usability no-go area.

Thoughts? Can we switch to their installer?

Rich.



Looking at the installation and the documentation of Ubuntu 10.10, the
outside looks nice but the functionality is very lacking as pointed out
on many posts. AFAIK, Ubuntu installer does not have the ability to
customize installation for use needs as highlighted and can be only done
offline. I don't know if there are installer from live media that
provide more control about package to install other than extracting the
bundled applications.

What anaconda needs is more refinement and polishing as majority of
function are already in place (has the team solved issue about multiple
boot bug or recognition of other installed distributions>).

To answer the question: don't switch to that new installer.


I completely agree. I've never heard any of the users who prefer
Ubuntu to complain about the mentioned problems with the Fedora's
installer. While those features are nice to have, but it's not hard
for users to live with them at all. The only thing that I've seen
that some (specially novice) users prefer about the Ubuntu installer
is the ability to install from the Windows environment and it's
ability to install Ubuntu "inside" a Windows partition without
requiring to change hard disks partitioning (IIRC the old RedHat had
this feature for sometime).

I was also proud of Anaconda's features, and hardly against reducing
its feature set. Looking for new users should not make us forgetting
current Fedora users. There is some reason that the current Fedora
users has not switched to Ubuntu; but if you make things more and
more like Ubuntu the current users will look somewhere else to find
what they want.



For example, I do lots of Fedora installations, but I rarely do a
normal install. On my own ThinkPad X61 I use hard disk installation
(it doesn't have any DVD/CD drives), and for others I usually do an
HTTP install from my laptop. (Installing from live medias or BFO
installation methods are simply a No-Go for me because of the
required during-install or after-install bandwidth).

Also, from time to time I do organize some competitions in which I
should install Linux on many systems, and so I do an HTTP install to
install in parallel. In my case, being able to do a hard disk
install from an NTFS partition (which worked fine in F13 but doesn't
work in F14, and it was never officially supported) is much much
more important (as I don't have any non-lvm ext partitions and FAT
partitions have been long gone from hard disks!) than the mentioned
features.



Another thing which hits me is being forced to customizing package
list always: if you select "Software Development" as the software
you need, you cannot select any other option in the new Anacondas;
and in its default selection there is no Office suits, no media
applications and even it doesn't select Eclipse (I wonder if most of
software developers do not use office and sound/video
applications!). So, I'm forced to customize the package selection.



IMHO, the features I mentioned provide more than a little faster
installation or guessing user's timezone.



Good luck,

Hedayat






- --
Luya Tshimbalanga
Graphic & Web Designer
E: luya@fedoraproject.org
W: http://www.thefinalzone.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMt74WAAoJEGZ+gIukWeEez4UH+wcvdTZBl8 TvStVILx2vHGF2
1L1mgvYlfyZqmvTA/B8oFaU5uId3tNCFhoeGAhWEXwhjX2R9mX8MFjI5Gf+aU5Me
A9rI2PGePvcV9jJ7B+Fohc5/61KGAYtitNZhiDq8MlBH1TMEH+HfesX3nzMvn3iV
wjDELf3dzistkprX7ERSBm+pV0auUkYIQuOlr8AapoZzhi9LaR aOW4rBORb92ATf
EfKOxu/ukicaqebrMHaMB3PaDDSXhFb/99opE+pwDG5IcwCymuMfiBT+D1g5+1vr
SYyThPcxmhd1BGmXpO8ChW/wwIYQJ32hTvixvBJCiIVSUp9AIkJSEZdRf1lllUc=
=1O1D
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----





--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 04:36 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org