Re: Why does Anaconda overrides user decisions?
Hi On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Glenn Holmer wrote: Wait, are you saying that we can't have both functionality and a good, intuitive UI? It is just way more harder to expose all the options and do so in a way that many users would consider intuitive. When you have feedback about specific issues, file a bug report or post them in anaconda devel list and hopefully the UI warts gets fixed over time as it has the past few releases Rahul -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Why does Anaconda overrides user decisions?
On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:20:34 AM Matthew Miller wrote: It also covers more cases more simply than any other storage manager you've seen. You really can't have everything, here. How do you accomplish more by moving all items in a branched UI? If the some of the tasks are not imperative to complete the installation then it makes sense to hide them in separate branches but if the installation can't complete without actually going through each of the tasks then all branched UI does is to add more clicks to the process. -- Regards, Sudhir Khanger, sudhirkhanger.com, github.com/donniezazen, 5577 8CDB A059 085D 1D60 807F 8C00 45D9 F5EF C394. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Why does Anaconda overrides user decisions?
On 01/28/2015 10:20 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 05:15:53AM -0600, Glenn Holmer wrote: Anacoda is the weakest link in Fedora toolchain. The non-linear UI is completely non-intuitive +1, the partitioner is the worst I've seen in 20 years of using Linux. It also covers more cases more simply than any other storage manager you've seen. You really can't have everything, here. Wait, are you saying that we can't have both functionality and a good, intuitive UI? -- Glenn Holmer (Linux registered user #16682) After the vintage season came the aftermath -- and Cenbe. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Why does Anaconda overrides user decisions?
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 9:20 AM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 05:15:53AM -0600, Glenn Holmer wrote: Anacoda is the weakest link in Fedora toolchain. The non-linear UI is completely non-intuitive +1, the partitioner is the worst I've seen in 20 years of using Linux. It also covers more cases more simply than any other storage manager you've seen. You really can't have everything, here. This installer's manual partitioning works differently than other installers. This makes some tasks simpler, but it makes other tasks more difficult. My contemporary example: bootloader partitions. It's not just more difficult in Anaconda, it's unnecessarily more difficult, as in doing the right thing would be easier for the installer team, QA, and ultimately the end user. But the current behavior is being defended, and instead users are being blamed for the consequences. Once upon a time, there was just the MBR gap as the unofficial bootloader partition. The user wasn't ever asked to create it, and couldn't ever delete it. Even at the command line level, the gap creation was built into the CLI partition tool. It was not user domain, it was installer, bootloader, and firmware domain. Today, BIOSBoot and EFI System partitions are literal partitions with official standing. But for reasons unknown, the user is now burdened with required knowledge about them. The installer's manual partitioning now makes a required partition the responsibility of the user to create, and avoid inadvertently deleting. And that's a bad design. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022316 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183880 Central to the problem is the installer team believes users should know what they're doing in manual partitioning. It's exactly backwards logic. They have to know this because the installer wrongly involves the user in something that previously wasn't ever their domain, and shouldn't be now either just because it has an explicit partition. Even developers using kickstart wish the installer handled this automatically. I argued this very same thing in the above closed bug 1022316 over a year ago, but it was closed as notabug just like it's not a bug that the user is invited into easily deleting the EFI System partition without warning. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1108393#c12 Windows and OS X totally abstract the EFI System partition from the user. It's always created when required. It's never mounted at boot time. And no dynamic configuration data is stored there. We do the opposite of each of these. In every case where the more difficult, fragile, and confusing thing can be done, that's what we've chosen to do. We're doing it wrong, across the board. It's on thing to make mistakes, identify, and fix them. But that's not what's happening here. Instead we have a sclerotic installer team, defending bad design, and then blaming the user for the ensuing problems and confusion. Why? Because they expect the user to know what they're doing. A user who's using a GUI installer should know what they're doing. Oh my god it's just comical! Guess what? I expect the installer team to know what they're doing. And rule #1 for GUI installer developers is to not blame the user! Why? Because doing that is impudent betrayal, and that causes a loss of trust. The installer team is tone deaf on this issue. So Matthew, on this one particular narrow aspect of the installer? It is not simpler. It's viciously, egregiously, more difficult and dangerous. It's this way by choice, by design, and it's being defended, and now the user is being blamed. Chris Murphy -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Why does Anaconda overrides user decisions?
On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 05:15:53AM -0600, Glenn Holmer wrote: Anacoda is the weakest link in Fedora toolchain. The non-linear UI is completely non-intuitive +1, the partitioner is the worst I've seen in 20 years of using Linux. It also covers more cases more simply than any other storage manager you've seen. You really can't have everything, here. -- Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org Fedora Project Leader -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Why does Anaconda overrides user decisions?
Tim: Until you come to repartitioning a disc when you want to keep some of the stuff on it. I've had discs where I wanted to remove the extended partition, and keep the first normal partition, then re-use the rest of the disc. It refused to delete the extended partition because it insisted that there was a virtual partition inside it, but there wasn't. Chris Murphy: When you say it refused what's it? Sounds like a bug though. It's some time ago, so I can't recall what tool. Yes, it does sound like a bug, whether that was in the partitioning tool I was trying to use, or whether the disc had been badly partitioned, previously, I don't know. It's a horrid scheme, only surpassed in evilness by the bastard LVM. OK well, it at least solves the non-contiguous regions problem of partitions by presenting those regions as if they were contiguous. But giving you something that had no fsck tools (does it have one, now?). Then there was the fun of figuring out how to manually mount partitions, for those cases where you wanted to plug in some other drive. It had its own peculiar tools for that, and problems abound for like-named partitions (such as trying to mount your /home from another computer). And it's feature that allowed you to span partitions across more than one drive was a double-edged sword. Sure, you could create a mega huge partition, but a failure on any disc rendered the entirety of your huge faked-up partition dead. So if you're going to reject MBR, EBR and LVM, you're left with GPT. While that has redundant and checksummed partition data, it doesn't solve the discontiguous space issue. And you're at the whim of your firmware, whether it'll tolerate GPT without face planting. Well, only if nobody comes up with yet another way... ;-) I rather liked how my old Amiga partitioned, you just carved up the drive into partitions, directly. No partitions inside another container business of the extended partition scheme that DOS used. You want one, two, or seven, partitions, you can have them. You even had some good GUI tools for dividing it up, letting you drag around the placement of the partitions, and their size by dragging the widths of the bars. -- tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp Linux 3.17.8-200.fc20.i686 #1 SMP Fri Jan 9 00:01:03 UTC 2015 i686 All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is no point trying to privately email me, I will only read messages posted to the public lists. George Orwell's '1984' was supposed to be a warning against tyranny, not a set of instructions for supposedly democratic governments. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Why does Anaconda overrides user decisions?
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 10:54 PM, Tim ignored_mail...@yahoo.com.au wrote: On Fri, 2015-01-23 at 13:23 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: Using the 4 partitions as primary is bad practice because it prevents additional partitions for no good reason. There isn't a negative to having extended partitions, GRUB can even boot from a /boot partition on an extended partition. Until you come to repartitioning a disc when you want to keep some of the stuff on it. I've had discs where I wanted to remove the extended partition, and keep the first normal partition, then re-use the rest of the disc. It refused to delete the extended partition because it insisted that there was a virtual partition inside it, but there wasn't. When you say it refused what's it? Sounds like a bug though. EBRs are really simple things, there's nothing magical about them, but an EBR defines both its own partition start-end, and points to the next EBR. So it's possible an EBR points to a corrupt EBR and that triggers the problem. And it might even be a sort of mis-feature designed to keep the user from inadvertently deleting something in such an ambiguous state. Anyway, it's kinda hard to know what's going on here without an actual example: partition data and what tool is rejecting the modification. It's a horrid scheme, only surpassed in evilness by the bastard LVM. OK well, it at least solves the non-contiguous regions problem of partitions by presenting those regions as if they were contiguous. So if you're going to reject MBR, EBR and LVM, you're left with GPT. While that has redundant and checksummed partition data, it doesn't solve the discontiguous space issue. And you're at the whim of your firmware, whether it'll tolerate GPT without face planting. -- Chris Murphy -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Why does Anaconda overrides user decisions?
Hi On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Sudhir Khanger wrote: I choose manual partitioning for a specific reason. When I choose manual partitioning I expect it to let me make legal decisions about partitioning. Make your case in bugzilla then. Thanks. I will do that. Anacoda is the weakest link in Fedora toolchain. The non-linear UI is completely non-intuitive and not to mention it being GTK+ means it will keep breaking in non-GNOME environments. Anaconda doesn't rely on any desktop environment. Rahul -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Why does Anaconda overrides user decisions?
On Fri, 2015-01-23 at 13:23 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: Using the 4 partitions as primary is bad practice because it prevents additional partitions for no good reason. There isn't a negative to having extended partitions, GRUB can even boot from a /boot partition on an extended partition. Until you come to repartitioning a disc when you want to keep some of the stuff on it. I've had discs where I wanted to remove the extended partition, and keep the first normal partition, then re-use the rest of the disc. It refused to delete the extended partition because it insisted that there was a virtual partition inside it, but there wasn't. It's a horrid scheme, only surpassed in evilness by the bastard LVM. -- tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp Linux 3.17.8-200.fc20.i686 #1 SMP Fri Jan 9 00:01:03 UTC 2015 i686 All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is no point trying to privately email me, I will only read messages posted to the public lists. George Orwell's '1984' was supposed to be a warning against tyranny, not a set of instructions for supposedly democratic governments. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Why does Anaconda overrides user decisions?
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 8:56 PM, Sudhir Khanger m...@sudhirkhanger.com wrote: I choose manual partitioning for a specific reason. When I choose manual partitioning I expect it to let me make legal decisions about partitioning. The last time I installed Fedora 21 Anaconda was dead set to stick a data partition between two system partitions. And 99% of users would care about partition numbers because a data partition between two system partitions or sticking swap between a bunch of data partitions makes it impossible to shrink/extend/merge without too much hassle. I'd say at most 20% of Fedora users care about partition numbers, and in the world it's tiny less than 1%. There really aren't many partition ninjas in the world. But I suggest filing a bug because the current behavior isn't going to change by complaining about it here. The other thing is that this problem is obviated if you use LVM or Btrfs. It only happens with standard partitions, in which case you're probably better off using gparted or blivet-gui to create the partitions you want in advance if the order matters. -- Chris Murphy -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Why does Anaconda overrides user decisions?
On 01/23/2015 09:56 PM, Sudhir Khanger wrote: Anacoda is the weakest link in Fedora toolchain. The non-linear UI is completely non-intuitive +1, the partitioner is the worst I've seen in 20 years of using Linux. -- Glenn Holmer (Linux registered user #16682) After the vintage season came the aftermath -- and Cenbe. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Why does Anaconda overrides user decisions?
Hi On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 6:46 PM, Rex Dieter wrote: I think he was alluding to gtk3-theming related bugs in kde (we've hit several during f20/f21 pre-releases) Sure but that doesn't really affect Anaconda. It is not a regular program you run in any desktop environment. Even in a live environment, you are doing it full screen. Rahul -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Why does Anaconda overrides user decisions?
Rahul Sundaram wrote: it being GTK+ means it will keep breaking in non-GNOME environments. Anaconda doesn't rely on any desktop environment. I think he was alluding to gtk3-theming related bugs in kde (we've hit several during f20/f21 pre-releases) -- Rex -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Why does Anaconda overrides user decisions?
On Friday, January 23, 2015 11:15:02 AM T.C. Hollingsworth wrote: On Jan 23, 2015 3:37 AM, Sudhir Khanger m...@sudhirkhanger.com wrote: Hello, 1. Anaconda changes X in sdaX. If you make a choice on order of /boot, swap, and / partitions, Anaconda changes the order. As long as layout is valid why does Anaconda has to change it. IIRC it likes to put /boot near the beginning because some old BIOSes refuse to boot if it is too far into the disk. In practical terms very few people care what order their partitions are and would rather have their system boot than anaconda be super pedantic about the order in which you created the partitions in the GUI. :-) If you must have a particular partition order you can use a kickstart file or partition your drive with your favorite CLI or GUI partition manager first and use anaconda only to assign mount points. 2. 4 primary partitions are allowed on a disk. If I do that Anaconda changes it to 3 primary and 1 logical partition. Why? As Rex pointed out, if you do that you won't be able to add another one later. A long time ago, I forgot about the 4 partition rule with old anaconda, which happily allowed you to do this, and it was a giant PITA later on when I decided to add another partition. (For my next install I used LVM and haven't looked back. :-) Again, if you really want to do this, use kickstart or partition outside of anaconda first. With regards to these two: Anaconda is an OS installer, not a general partition manager. It therefore tries not to give you too much rope to hang yourself with, and makes executive decisions about minor details like partition numbers that 99% of users could care less about. But if you don't like its decisions you're not forced to use it; just use what you want first instead. Anaconda will not touch an existing partition layout unless you tell it to. I choose manual partitioning for a specific reason. When I choose manual partitioning I expect it to let me make legal decisions about partitioning. The last time I installed Fedora 21 Anaconda was dead set to stick a data partition between two system partitions. And 99% of users would care about partition numbers because a data partition between two system partitions or sticking swap between a bunch of data partitions makes it impossible to shrink/extend/merge without too much hassle. 3. There is no option to create a partition and leave it for future use. How do I create a partition and not have to use it immediately. This sounds perfectly reasonable. If anaconda doesn't let you create a partition without assigning a mount point, file a feature request in bugzilla. In the meantime, you can just remove the unwanted entry from /etc/fstab, or again, kickstart or parted first. -T.C. Thanks. I will do that. Anacoda is the weakest link in Fedora toolchain. The non-linear UI is completely non-intuitive and not to mention it being GTK+ means it will keep breaking in non-GNOME environments. -- Regards, Sudhir Khanger, sudhirkhanger.com, github.com/donniezazen, 5577 8CDB A059 085D 1D60 807F 8C00 45D9 F5EF C394. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Why does Anaconda overrides user decisions?
On Jan 23, 2015 3:37 AM, Sudhir Khanger m...@sudhirkhanger.com wrote: Hello, 1. Anaconda changes X in sdaX. If you make a choice on order of /boot, swap, and / partitions, Anaconda changes the order. As long as layout is valid why does Anaconda has to change it. IIRC it likes to put /boot near the beginning because some old BIOSes refuse to boot if it is too far into the disk. In practical terms very few people care what order their partitions are and would rather have their system boot than anaconda be super pedantic about the order in which you created the partitions in the GUI. :-) If you must have a particular partition order you can use a kickstart file or partition your drive with your favorite CLI or GUI partition manager first and use anaconda only to assign mount points. 2. 4 primary partitions are allowed on a disk. If I do that Anaconda changes it to 3 primary and 1 logical partition. Why? As Rex pointed out, if you do that you won't be able to add another one later. A long time ago, I forgot about the 4 partition rule with old anaconda, which happily allowed you to do this, and it was a giant PITA later on when I decided to add another partition. (For my next install I used LVM and haven't looked back. :-) Again, if you really want to do this, use kickstart or partition outside of anaconda first. With regards to these two: Anaconda is an OS installer, not a general partition manager. It therefore tries not to give you too much rope to hang yourself with, and makes executive decisions about minor details like partition numbers that 99% of users could care less about. But if you don't like its decisions you're not forced to use it; just use what you want first instead. Anaconda will not touch an existing partition layout unless you tell it to. 3. There is no option to create a partition and leave it for future use. How do I create a partition and not have to use it immediately. This sounds perfectly reasonable. If anaconda doesn't let you create a partition without assigning a mount point, file a feature request in bugzilla. In the meantime, you can just remove the unwanted entry from /etc/fstab, or again, kickstart or parted first. -T.C. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Why does Anaconda overrides user decisions?
On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 3:36 AM, Sudhir Khanger m...@sudhirkhanger.com wrote: Hello, 1. Anaconda changes X in sdaX. If you make a choice on order of /boot, swap, and / partitions, Anaconda changes the order. As long as layout is valid why does Anaconda has to change it. The installer presents a mount point centric view to the user, de-emphasizing the partitions. Some partitions arguably shouldn't even be displayed at all, like EFI System and BIOS Boot. The logic for the ordering is a little lost on me too, but it seems rather unimportant, so long as the logic produces a bootable computer. 2. 4 primary partitions are allowed on a disk. If I do that Anaconda changes it to 3 primary and 1 logical partition. Why? Using the 4 partitions as primary is bad practice because it prevents additional partitions for no good reason. There isn't a negative to having extended partitions, GRUB can even boot from a /boot partition on an extended partition. 3. There is no option to create a partition and leave it for future use. How do I create a partition and not have to use it immediately. It's a mount point centric installer. You can create an arbitrary mount point, and configure its size and a file system. After installation you can remove this mount point and its entry in fstab. -- Chris Murphy -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Why does Anaconda overrides user decisions?
Hello, 1. Anaconda changes X in sdaX. If you make a choice on order of /boot, swap, and / partitions, Anaconda changes the order. As long as layout is valid why does Anaconda has to change it. 2. 4 primary partitions are allowed on a disk. If I do that Anaconda changes it to 3 primary and 1 logical partition. Why? 3. There is no option to create a partition and leave it for future use. How do I create a partition and not have to use it immediately. -- Regards, Sudhir Khanger, sudhirkhanger.com, github.com/donniezazen, 5577 8CDB A059 085D 1D60 807F 8C00 45D9 F5EF C394. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Why does Anaconda overrides user decisions?
Sudhir Khanger wrote: 2. 4 primary partitions are allowed on a disk. If I do that Anaconda changes it to 3 primary and 1 logical partition. Why? I would venture a guess: to prevent the case where you would no longer be able to create any more partitions. -- rex -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
