Re: UEFI Secure Boot - the plan for stretch
- To: Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Ben Hutchings <email@example.com>, Steve McIntyre <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, Colin Watson <firstname.lastname@example.org>, micah anderson <email@example.com>, Tollef Fog Heen <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: UEFI Secure Boot - the plan for stretch
- From: Mario Limonciello <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 12:25:49 -0500
- Message-id: <[🔎] 5703F51D.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20160405034925.GC14894@virgil.dodds.net>
- References: <[🔎] 20160401133517.GC31407@einval.com> <[🔎] email@example.com> <[🔎] 20160405034925.GC14894@virgil.dodds.net>
On 04/04/2016 10:49 PM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 03:36:01AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>>> * fwupdate
>> Someone who understands this should open an ITP or RFP.
> fwupdate just needs a fwupdate-signed package for any EFI-signed binary if
> we want this to be usable on secureboot systems. I wouldn't say this blocks
> SB support though and would leave it up to the fwupdate maintainers (incl.
> Sledge) to sort through.
I've filed #820124 for tracking this. It has the same infrastructure
blockers as grub2 and should be resolvable at about the same time.