Re: Wishlist meta-bug? Explain 'unsigned' in package name

[Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz>]

On 29/09/16 01:05, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> 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.

Oh, ok - so when I installed linux-image-4.7.0-0.bpo.1-amd64-unsigned,
assuming it to be the natural successor to the now obsolete
linux-image-4.6.0-0.bpo.1-amd64 (generally following
jessie-backports), that wasn't really the right thing to do?

Or was it a mistake that the 4.7 unsigned kernel got into backports
instead of the signed one in the first place?

Anyway, it seems unfortunate that there now appears to be no
trustworthy bpo kernel for those of us with needy hardware :-(

Cheers,
Richard