Re: [Long] UEFI support
+++ Steve Langasek [2012-01-06 16:08 -0800]:
> On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 02:41:41PM +0000, Tanguy Ortolo wrote:
>
> > It is also worth noting that an amd64 PC will probably support x64 UEFI
> > only, so given that there is probably no UEFI-base x86 PCs, there is no
> > point in creating corresponding images.
>
> Your terminology is a bit muddled here. If you mean "there will be no
> 32-bit-only systems using UEFI", that's not a safe assumption to make.
> There are still 32-bit-only systems being produced, and the move from BIOS
> to UEFI will affect them as well.
ARM systems will imminently be coming out with UEFI as the primary
boot mechanism too, so at least armhf and probably armel images make
sense too.
This is actually a very good thing in the sense that we can have a
unified boot mechanism across most newish machines in the
not-too-distant future, which makes debian-boot people's lives a lot
easier.
I assume evyone here is aware of mjg's useful posts about the issue of
key-management in UEFI secure boot?
We need to do one of:
* get our bootloaders signed by something like the 'linuxfoundation key'
if such a thing gets widely installed,
* explain to users how to get the 'debian key' installed
* explain to users how to turn off secure boot.
* Get manufacturers to put the Debian key in machines for sale (or
just make them with Debian(or a deriviative) pre-installed.
Ubuntu/Canonical probably have more leverage/interest in this aspect
of the problem so we should co-ordinate. Can be share a bootloader key
for example? - sounds sensible to me.
Wookey
--
Principal hats: Linaro, Emdebian, Wookware, Balloonboard, ARM
http://wookware.org/
Reply to: