So, looking through this diff: (holy crap, the grub-installer script
is getting big! :-()
On that front, I'm *tempted* to say it's time to stop caring about and
supporting grub-legacy here, maybe?
On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 01:51:41PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
>diff --git a/grub-installer
On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 05:34:41PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
>I'm about to test this lot locally and double-check it DTRT for both
>amd64/efi with -signed and i386/efi (without), anyway.
And all looks good in both cases. Committing now.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.
On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 03:09:57PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
>On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 02:20:49PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> I'd possibly do both? grub-installer is one obvious place to make d-i
>> add things (and the patch there also looks fairly obvious, roughly
>> what I also considered
On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 02:20:49PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> I'd possibly do both? grub-installer is one obvious place to make d-i
> add things (and the patch there also looks fairly obvious, roughly
> what I also considered myself), but that *only* works for d-i. If we
> add the Recommends:
On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 01:51:41PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
>On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 12:58:52PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> NB: Ubuntu doesn't have the depends/recommends here, so I can only
>> assume that some other method is used to ensure that shim-signed is
>> installed there. I asked
On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 12:58:52PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> NB: Ubuntu doesn't have the depends/recommends here, so I can only
> assume that some other method is used to ensure that shim-signed is
> installed there. I asked Steve Langasek about this, but I've not had
> an answer yet.
I
Package: grub-efi-amd64-signed
Version: 1+2.02+dfsg1+9
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
Hi!
Working through the last pieces of secure boot support for Buster, I
have a working installer build and a working netinst that boot with SB
enabled and do all the right things. Yay!
The're only one thing
7 matches
Mail list logo
