On Wed, 2016-06-01 at 14:38 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On 06/01/2016 02:34 PM, Anatoly Pugachev wrote: > > If module signing only for Secure Boot on EFI [2], why do we have > > it on sparc64? > > Looks like an oversight to me. The kernels for the different > architectures share > some of the configuration, so it might just be a bug that this > particular option > should be set on architectures only which support SecureBoot. It should be set for all architectures for which we provide signatures. In practice that's only going to be architectures in the main archive, so excluding sparc64. As it is, the only way to avoid it is to install my patched kmod and an experimental signature package. And that actually isn't a very good idea, so in practice everyone sees this error message at the moment on all architectures. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings To err is human; to really foul things up requires a computer.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part