On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 03:22:05PM +1300, Richard Hector wrote: > On 26/09/16 14:59, Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote: > > On 26/09/16 14:43, Richard Hector wrote: > >> Hey all, > >> Does anyone know what the deal is with the recently-released > >> linux-image-4.7.0-0.bpo.1-amd64-unsigned package? It installs without > >> complaint, so aptitude doesn't mind its unsigned-ness - does the > >> 'unsigned' refer to something else? > >> Richard > > > > Richard, > > > > in this context, "signed" means signed for use with UEFI Secure Boot. > > Some recent kernels with no mention of signedness in their package name > > contain text like this: > > > > "The kernel image and modules are signed for use with Secure Boot." > > > > From: https://packages.debian.org/sid/linux-image-4.7.0-1-amd64 > > Cheers - I don't tend to look at the detailed descriptions of packages I > think I'm familiar with :-) > > I might make a suggestion on the kernel list, to add something to the > description of -unsigned packages ... Hmm, it looks like there are no *-unsigned packages for the 4.9.0-3-amd64 kernels (or any arch?), now. Was the "unsigned" variant only a temporary measure, perhaps? - Mark -- Mark Kamichoff prox@prolixium.com http://www.prolixium.com/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature