On Thu, 2016-09-29 at 02:54 +1300, Richard Hector wrote: > 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? It was a mistake that that was uploaded, since jessie-backports is supposed to be based on testing which still has 4.6. > Anyway, it seems unfortunate that there now appears to be no > trustworthy bpo kernel for those of us with needy hardware :-( This should get sorted out by the end of the week. 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