List Archive: gentoo-dev
Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.c.f. bug 424647
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:54:12 +0200
Florian Philipp <lists@...> wrote:
> Am 15.06.2012 06:50, schrieb Duncan:
> > Greg KH posted on Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:28:10 -0700 as excerpted:
> >> So, anyone been thinking about this? I have, and it's not pretty.
> >> Should I worry about this and how it affects Gentoo, or not worry
> >> about Gentoo right now and just focus on the other issues?
> >> Minor details like, "do we have a 'company' that can pay Microsoft
> >> to sign our bootloader?" is one aspect from the non-technical side
> >> that I've been wondering about.
> > I've been following developments and wondering a bit about this
> > myself.
> > I had concluded that at least for x86/amd64, where MS is mandating
> > a user controlled disable-signed-checking option, gentoo shouldn't
> > have a problem. Other than updating the handbook to accommodate
> > UEFI, presumably along with the grub2 stabilization, I believe
> > we're fine as if a user can't figure out how to disable that option
> > on their (x86/amd64) platform, they're hardly likely to be a good
> > match for gentoo in any case.
> As a user, I'd still like to have the chance of using Secure Boot with
> Gentoo since it _really_ increases security. Even if it means I can no
> longer build my own kernel.
It doesn't. It's just a very long wooden fence; you just didn't find
the hole yet.