etienne.moll...@mailoo.org wrote: >deloptes, on 2019-10-03: >> Gerard ROBIN wrote: >> >> >> What exactly bugs you about the signed kernel? The kernel is so big >> >> that the extra signatures hardly make a difference. >> > I read somewhere that the signed kernel was for the "secure boot" of >> > microsoft and I have nothing of microsoft on my machine, so that's why >> > I installed the unsigned kernel. >> >> does someone know if signed is needed for UEFI to work properly in some >> configurations? > >Good day deloptes, > >I don't know if someone else hit some other corner base, but >signed kernels, bootloaders, drivers, and the like are only >required if one wishes to, or has to, boot with UEFI Secure Boot >enabled. That's the only configuration I can think of where it >would be needed.
It's only *needed* if you're doing SB, but even if you have SB disabled there is basically no downside to having the signed packages installed. Things will work just fine, just taking a *tiny* bit more disk space. Hence we've defaulted to doing things that way - everybody will get a consistent set of packages that way. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com Armed with "Valor": "Centurion" represents quality of Discipline, Honor, Integrity and Loyalty. Now you don't have to be a Caesar to concord the digital world while feeling safe and proud.
