On Wed, 2016-09-28 at 14:01 +1300, Richard Hector wrote: > Hi - I can create a bug for this if required, but it seems a bit meta > and trivial. > > Can the description of packages with '-unsigned' in the name include an > explanation of what 'unsigned' means in this context? > > I understand now it relates to Secure Boot, but initially I was worried > that I was installing an unsigned and therefore potentially untrusted > package. If '-unsigned' dissuades users from installing it, I'm quite happy with that. The packages with signed code should be used by default. We could improve the descriptions to make this clearer, but it would require changes in both linux and linux-signed - currently the latter copies the unsigned package's description and adds '(signed)' to the first line. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings If the facts do not conform to your theory, they must be disposed of.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part