Re: unsigned linux-image?

From	Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz>
Newsgroups	linux.debian.user
Subject	Re: unsigned linux-image?
Date	2016-09-26 04:30 +0200
Message-ID	<sltQ5-6kR-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<sltdn-5JM-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <sltwJ-65r-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On 26/09/16 14:59, Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:
> On 26/09/16 14:43, Richard Hector wrote:
>> Hey all,
>> Does anyone know what the deal is with the recently-released
>> linux-image-4.7.0-0.bpo.1-amd64-unsigned package? It installs without
>> complaint, so aptitude doesn't mind its unsigned-ness - does the
>> 'unsigned' refer to something else?
>> Richard
> 
> Richard,
> 
> in this context, "signed" means signed for use with UEFI Secure Boot.
> Some recent kernels with no mention of signedness in their package name
> contain text like this:
> 
> "The kernel image and modules are signed for use with Secure Boot."
> 
> From: https://packages.debian.org/sid/linux-image-4.7.0-1-amd64

Cheers - I don't tend to look at the detailed descriptions of packages I
think I'm familiar with :-)

I might make a suggestion on the kernel list, to add something to the
description of -unsigned packages ...

Richard

Back to linux.debian.user | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

unsigned linux-image? Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2016-09-26 03:50 +0200
  Re: unsigned linux-image? Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz> - 2016-09-26 04:10 +0200
    Re: unsigned linux-image? Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2016-09-26 04:30 +0200

csiph-web