Bug#851680: closed by Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk> (Re: Bug#851680: Please provide linux-image-amd64-unsigned et al. metapackages (was Re: Please upload signed kernel images at the same time a

On Tue, 2017-01-17 at 20:05 +0100, Julien Aubin wrote: > Hi Ben, > > In that case you have to find a way to provide signed and unsigned images > simultaneously. > > Otherwise to me it looks like a release blocker and I'll raise a ticket > about this. For stable security updates on

Bug#851680: closed by Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk> (Re: Bug#851680: Please provide linux-image-amd64-unsigned et al. metapackages (was Re: Please upload signed kernel images at the same time a

Hi Ben, In that case you have to find a way to provide signed and unsigned images simultaneously. Otherwise to me it looks like a release blocker and I'll raise a ticket about this. 2017-01-17 18:55 GMT+01:00 Thorsten Glaser : > Hello Ben, > > >No, there will be no such

Bug#851680: closed by Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk> (Re: Bug#851680: Please provide linux-image-amd64-unsigned et al. metapackages (was Re: Please upload signed kernel images at the same time a

On Tue, 2017-01-17 at 18:55 +0100, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Hello Ben, > > > No, there will be no such meta-packages.  The -unsigned packages > > are > > only meant for developer testing and as build dependencies for > > signed > > binary packages. > > then, would you please kindly explain how

Bug#851680: closed by Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk> (Re: Bug#851680: Please provide linux-image-amd64-unsigned et al. metapackages (was Re: Please upload signed kernel images at the same time a

Hello Ben, >No, there will be no such meta-packages. The -unsigned packages are >only meant for developer testing and as build dependencies for signed >binary packages. then, would you please kindly explain how you plan to address the issue of not getting the security updates from newer kernel