On 08/22/2016 01:16 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 2:08 PM, John Dulaney <jdulaney@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 12:28:18PM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote:
The secure boot patches have been around in the Fedora tree for a while now.
They work well enough but there has not been much active work in getting
them accepted upstream in recent years. The longer they exist out of tree
the harder they get to maintain without extra support. If there isn't a
path for the current secure boot patch set to be accepted upstream, we need
to seriously consider if it's worth carrying long term.
Thoughts?
So, how would we handle secure boot moving forward?
How are other distros handling this? Does upstream have an alternative?
There isn't one unified answer. Every distro seems to be doing something
different because upstream hasn't provided a single solution.
Moving forward, we would treat secure boot like feature that is still
in progress. This means taking the existing secure boot patches or
a new approach and submitting them in a way that's acceptable to the upstream
community. This is also code for "I don't know but what we have isn't
sustainable so let's discuss something better".
Thanks,
Laura
_______________________________________________
kernel mailing list
kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
