Why are Linux kernel images missing from the Ubuntu Kernel PPA for 4.17-rcX? (Ubuntu-Mainline-Kernel-Updater)
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I'm using the Ubuntu Mainline Kernel Updater to keep my installs on mainline because I want to start helping uncover kernel bugs in early releases. I've been doing this since late 4.15 release cycle using the linked update script. Starting with the 4.17 release cycle the Ubuntu Kernel PPA has been missing the deb builds for the kernel itself since rc2 but they came back in rc4/5 with the unsigned name. I know on the mailing list there were patches surrounding root of trust during the boot process and if they should be tied to certain UEFI flags. I also know this involved signing kernel releases and drivers, so I suspect that may be the cause of the name change and therefore non-functioning script.
I was hoping to get some more insight as to where on the Ubuntu side I would receive communications regarding why certain RCs were incomplete and why the others changed. Obv Bionic dropped and I figured that might be the reason some were incomplete.
Should I just go ahead and patch the updater script to use the unsigned images? I'm not terribly concerned about the presence (or lack thereof) of the chain of trust feature.
Thanks
Edit 1
PR to Fix the Script
My Fork if the Repo Remains Silent
kernel ppa
asked May 14 at 17:35
guyfleeman
1568
migrated from unix.stackexchange.com May 14 at 18:15
This question came from our site for users of Linux, FreeBSD and other Un*x-like operating systems.
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I'm using the Ubuntu Mainline Kernel Updater to keep my installs on mainline because I want to start helping uncover kernel bugs in early releases. I've been doing this since late 4.15 release cycle using the linked update script. Starting with the 4.17 release cycle the Ubuntu Kernel PPA has been missing the deb builds for the kernel itself since rc2 but they came back in rc4/5 with the unsigned name. I know on the mailing list there were patches surrounding root of trust during the boot process and if they should be tied to certain UEFI flags. I also know this involved signing kernel releases and drivers, so I suspect that may be the cause of the name change and therefore non-functioning script.
I was hoping to get some more insight as to where on the Ubuntu side I would receive communications regarding why certain RCs were incomplete and why the others changed. Obv Bionic dropped and I figured that might be the reason some were incomplete.
Should I just go ahead and patch the updater script to use the unsigned images? I'm not terribly concerned about the presence (or lack thereof) of the chain of trust feature.
Thanks
Edit 1
PR to Fix the Script
My Fork if the Repo Remains Silent
kernel ppa
asked May 14 at 17:35
guyfleeman
1568
migrated from unix.stackexchange.com May 14 at 18:15
This question came from our site for users of Linux, FreeBSD and other Un*x-like operating systems.
1
The team to contact with these questions is the Ubuntu Kernel Team. I don't believe they frequent Ask Ubuntu, and you may get a faster response when reaching out to them directly.
– Thomas Ward♦
May 14 at 18:19
For anyone who stumbled across this, I opened a PR at github.com/GM-Script-Writer-62850/… to fix this change.
– guyfleeman
May 18 at 22:48
Not sure about your "fork" but there was a bug in Kernel 4.17-rc2, 4.14.36 and 4.16.3. See: askubuntu.com/questions/1027767/… and askubuntu.com/questions/1030043/…. Also today someone asked why kernels were no longer signed: askubuntu.com/questions/1039201/…
– WinEunuuchs2Unix
May 23 at 4:41
Fork was based off of Andy's response below. He's on the kernel team and said the change in naming scheme was here to stay. The script now fetches kernels properly. It still failes for a plethora of other outside of my direct control.
– guyfleeman
May 23 at 15:16
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I'm using the Ubuntu Mainline Kernel Updater to keep my installs on mainline because I want to start helping uncover kernel bugs in early releases. I've been doing this since late 4.15 release cycle using the linked update script. Starting with the 4.17 release cycle the Ubuntu Kernel PPA has been missing the deb builds for the kernel itself since rc2 but they came back in rc4/5 with the unsigned name. I know on the mailing list there were patches surrounding root of trust during the boot process and if they should be tied to certain UEFI flags. I also know this involved signing kernel releases and drivers, so I suspect that may be the cause of the name change and therefore non-functioning script.
I was hoping to get some more insight as to where on the Ubuntu side I would receive communications regarding why certain RCs were incomplete and why the others changed. Obv Bionic dropped and I figured that might be the reason some were incomplete.
Should I just go ahead and patch the updater script to use the unsigned images? I'm not terribly concerned about the presence (or lack thereof) of the chain of trust feature.
Thanks
Edit 1
PR to Fix the Script
My Fork if the Repo Remains Silent
kernel ppa
asked May 14 at 17:35
guyfleeman
1568
I'm using the Ubuntu Mainline Kernel Updater to keep my installs on mainline because I want to start helping uncover kernel bugs in early releases. I've been doing this since late 4.15 release cycle using the linked update script. Starting with the 4.17 release cycle the Ubuntu Kernel PPA has been missing the deb builds for the kernel itself since rc2 but they came back in rc4/5 with the unsigned name. I know on the mailing list there were patches surrounding root of trust during the boot process and if they should be tied to certain UEFI flags. I also know this involved signing kernel releases and drivers, so I suspect that may be the cause of the name change and therefore non-functioning script.
I was hoping to get some more insight as to where on the Ubuntu side I would receive communications regarding why certain RCs were incomplete and why the others changed. Obv Bionic dropped and I figured that might be the reason some were incomplete.
Should I just go ahead and patch the updater script to use the unsigned images? I'm not terribly concerned about the presence (or lack thereof) of the chain of trust feature.
Thanks
Edit 1
PR to Fix the Script
My Fork if the Repo Remains Silent
kernel ppa
asked May 14 at 17:35
guyfleeman
1568
edited May 23 at 4:35
asked May 14 at 17:35
guyfleeman
1568
asked May 14 at 17:35
guyfleeman
1568
asked May 14 at 17:35
guyfleeman
1568
1568
migrated from unix.stackexchange.com May 14 at 18:15
This question came from our site for users of Linux, FreeBSD and other Un*x-like operating systems.
migrated from unix.stackexchange.com May 14 at 18:15
This question came from our site for users of Linux, FreeBSD and other Un*x-like operating systems.
1
The team to contact with these questions is the Ubuntu Kernel Team. I don't believe they frequent Ask Ubuntu, and you may get a faster response when reaching out to them directly.
– Thomas Ward♦
May 14 at 18:19
For anyone who stumbled across this, I opened a PR at github.com/GM-Script-Writer-62850/… to fix this change.
– guyfleeman
May 18 at 22:48
Not sure about your "fork" but there was a bug in Kernel 4.17-rc2, 4.14.36 and 4.16.3. See: askubuntu.com/questions/1027767/… and askubuntu.com/questions/1030043/…. Also today someone asked why kernels were no longer signed: askubuntu.com/questions/1039201/…
– WinEunuuchs2Unix
May 23 at 4:41
Fork was based off of Andy's response below. He's on the kernel team and said the change in naming scheme was here to stay. The script now fetches kernels properly. It still failes for a plethora of other outside of my direct control.
– guyfleeman
May 23 at 15:16
add a comment |Â
1
The team to contact with these questions is the Ubuntu Kernel Team. I don't believe they frequent Ask Ubuntu, and you may get a faster response when reaching out to them directly.
– Thomas Ward♦
May 14 at 18:19
For anyone who stumbled across this, I opened a PR at github.com/GM-Script-Writer-62850/… to fix this change.
– guyfleeman
May 18 at 22:48
Not sure about your "fork" but there was a bug in Kernel 4.17-rc2, 4.14.36 and 4.16.3. See: askubuntu.com/questions/1027767/… and askubuntu.com/questions/1030043/…. Also today someone asked why kernels were no longer signed: askubuntu.com/questions/1039201/…
– WinEunuuchs2Unix
May 23 at 4:41
Fork was based off of Andy's response below. He's on the kernel team and said the change in naming scheme was here to stay. The script now fetches kernels properly. It still failes for a plethora of other outside of my direct control.
– guyfleeman
May 23 at 15:16
1
1
The team to contact with these questions is the Ubuntu Kernel Team. I don't believe they frequent Ask Ubuntu, and you may get a faster response when reaching out to them directly.
– Thomas Ward♦
May 14 at 18:19
The team to contact with these questions is the Ubuntu Kernel Team. I don't believe they frequent Ask Ubuntu, and you may get a faster response when reaching out to them directly.
– Thomas Ward♦
May 14 at 18:19
For anyone who stumbled across this, I opened a PR at github.com/GM-Script-Writer-62850/… to fix this change.
– guyfleeman
May 18 at 22:48
For anyone who stumbled across this, I opened a PR at github.com/GM-Script-Writer-62850/… to fix this change.
– guyfleeman
May 18 at 22:48
Not sure about your "fork" but there was a bug in Kernel 4.17-rc2, 4.14.36 and 4.16.3. See: askubuntu.com/questions/1027767/… and askubuntu.com/questions/1030043/…. Also today someone asked why kernels were no longer signed: askubuntu.com/questions/1039201/…
– WinEunuuchs2Unix
May 23 at 4:41
Not sure about your "fork" but there was a bug in Kernel 4.17-rc2, 4.14.36 and 4.16.3. See: askubuntu.com/questions/1027767/… and askubuntu.com/questions/1030043/…. Also today someone asked why kernels were no longer signed: askubuntu.com/questions/1039201/…
– WinEunuuchs2Unix
May 23 at 4:41
Fork was based off of Andy's response below. He's on the kernel team and said the change in naming scheme was here to stay. The script now fetches kernels properly. It still failes for a plethora of other outside of my direct control.
– guyfleeman
May 23 at 15:16
Fork was based off of Andy's response below. He's on the kernel team and said the change in naming scheme was here to stay. The script now fetches kernels properly. It still failes for a plethora of other outside of my direct control.
– guyfleeman
May 23 at 15:16
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
Early -rcs commonly are not buildable due to upstream bugs. The later switch to -unsigned is deliberate and permenant for later versions. These relate to a change to have always signed kernels on full installed so the linux-image-* package now always contains a signed kernel if one exists. The unsigned kernel is shipped in linux-image-unsigned-*. These kernels are by definition always unsigned.
answered May 14 at 18:34
Andy
727314
Thanks Andy! I've patched my script and am back to pulling mainline regularly.
– guyfleeman
May 18 at 22:12
Was this just a semantic name change from having the signed kernel denoted as linux-signed-image to having the unsigned denoted instead?
– guyfleeman
May 18 at 22:15
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
Early -rcs commonly are not buildable due to upstream bugs. The later switch to -unsigned is deliberate and permenant for later versions. These relate to a change to have always signed kernels on full installed so the linux-image-* package now always contains a signed kernel if one exists. The unsigned kernel is shipped in linux-image-unsigned-*. These kernels are by definition always unsigned.
answered May 14 at 18:34
Andy
727314
Thanks Andy! I've patched my script and am back to pulling mainline regularly.
– guyfleeman
May 18 at 22:12
Was this just a semantic name change from having the signed kernel denoted as linux-signed-image to having the unsigned denoted instead?
– guyfleeman
May 18 at 22:15
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
Early -rcs commonly are not buildable due to upstream bugs. The later switch to -unsigned is deliberate and permenant for later versions. These relate to a change to have always signed kernels on full installed so the linux-image-* package now always contains a signed kernel if one exists. The unsigned kernel is shipped in linux-image-unsigned-*. These kernels are by definition always unsigned.
answered May 14 at 18:34
Andy
727314
Thanks Andy! I've patched my script and am back to pulling mainline regularly.
– guyfleeman
May 18 at 22:12
Was this just a semantic name change from having the signed kernel denoted as linux-signed-image to having the unsigned denoted instead?
– guyfleeman
May 18 at 22:15
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
Early -rcs commonly are not buildable due to upstream bugs. The later switch to -unsigned is deliberate and permenant for later versions. These relate to a change to have always signed kernels on full installed so the linux-image-* package now always contains a signed kernel if one exists. The unsigned kernel is shipped in linux-image-unsigned-*. These kernels are by definition always unsigned.
answered May 14 at 18:34
Andy
727314
Early -rcs commonly are not buildable due to upstream bugs. The later switch to -unsigned is deliberate and permenant for later versions. These relate to a change to have always signed kernels on full installed so the linux-image-* package now always contains a signed kernel if one exists. The unsigned kernel is shipped in linux-image-unsigned-*. These kernels are by definition always unsigned.
answered May 14 at 18:34
Andy
727314
answered May 14 at 18:34
Andy
727314
answered May 14 at 18:34
Andy
727314
answered May 14 at 18:34
Andy
727314
727314
Thanks Andy! I've patched my script and am back to pulling mainline regularly.
– guyfleeman
May 18 at 22:12
Was this just a semantic name change from having the signed kernel denoted as linux-signed-image to having the unsigned denoted instead?
– guyfleeman
May 18 at 22:15
add a comment |Â
Thanks Andy! I've patched my script and am back to pulling mainline regularly.
– guyfleeman
May 18 at 22:12
Was this just a semantic name change from having the signed kernel denoted as linux-signed-image to having the unsigned denoted instead?
– guyfleeman
May 18 at 22:15
Thanks Andy! I've patched my script and am back to pulling mainline regularly.
– guyfleeman
May 18 at 22:12
Thanks Andy! I've patched my script and am back to pulling mainline regularly.
– guyfleeman
May 18 at 22:12
Was this just a semantic name change from having the signed kernel denoted as linux-signed-image to having the unsigned denoted instead?
– guyfleeman
May 18 at 22:15
Was this just a semantic name change from having the signed kernel denoted as linux-signed-image to having the unsigned denoted instead?
– guyfleeman
May 18 at 22:15
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e)
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom))
StackExchange.using('gps', function() StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', location: 'question_page' ); );
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
;
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faskubuntu.com%2fquestions%2f1036216%2fwhy-are-linux-kernel-images-missing-from-the-ubuntu-kernel-ppa-for-4-17-rcx-ub%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e)
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom))
StackExchange.using('gps', function() StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', location: 'question_page' ); );
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
;
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e)
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom))
StackExchange.using('gps', function() StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', location: 'question_page' ); );
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
;
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e)
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom))
StackExchange.using('gps', function() StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', location: 'question_page' ); );
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
;
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
The team to contact with these questions is the Ubuntu Kernel Team. I don't believe they frequent Ask Ubuntu, and you may get a faster response when reaching out to them directly.
– Thomas Ward♦
May 14 at 18:19
For anyone who stumbled across this, I opened a PR at github.com/GM-Script-Writer-62850/… to fix this change.
– guyfleeman
May 18 at 22:48
Not sure about your "fork" but there was a bug in Kernel 4.17-rc2, 4.14.36 and 4.16.3. See: askubuntu.com/questions/1027767/… and askubuntu.com/questions/1030043/…. Also today someone asked why kernels were no longer signed: askubuntu.com/questions/1039201/…
– WinEunuuchs2Unix
May 23 at 4:41
Fork was based off of Andy's response below. He's on the kernel team and said the change in naming scheme was here to stay. The script now fetches kernels properly. It still failes for a plethora of other outside of my direct control.
– guyfleeman
May 23 at 15:16