From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B09694F10 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 13:46:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E469730A91 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 13:45:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 13:45:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 252B7441AD for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 13:45:41 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 13:45:37 +0200 From: Fabian =?iso-8859-1?q?Gr=FCnbichler?= <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> References: <20240126120512.415674-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> <8e981a87-2603-447d-8a6b-c30b7bc896b0@proxmox.com> <1707133435.9uxwiemda4.astroid@yuna.none> <b92c93f7-6df9-4add-8ce2-50b13aea3317@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <b92c93f7-6df9-4add-8ce2-50b13aea3317@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: astroid/0.16.0 (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid) Message-Id: <1712835911.h309v3pwpx.astroid@yuna.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.056 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [proxmox.com] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [RFC kernel-meta] add proxmox-secure-boot-support package X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/> List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 11:46:13 -0000 On February 6, 2024 10:40 am, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > Am 05/02/2024 um 12:45 schrieb Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler: >> On February 2, 2024 7:23 pm, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: >>> seems OK w.r.t. change, but do we want this to be either part of the sh= im, >>> or a separate repo? So that we do not need to ship a new kernel meta pa= ckage >>> when the shim version pinning needs an update? As it feels a bit unrela= ted >>> to the kernel meta package in general to me. >>=20 >> well, it needs to be updated when either grub or shim have a security >> update (or on major releases of course), so there's not really one place >> to fit it. we could have a separate repo (or refactor this one to >> contain two source packages, but that's fairly ugly as well) - that >> would obviously work as well. >>=20 >=20 > Then I'd prefer an extra repo, until now we basically pulled out any > such only tangentially related package out from the source package it > was added to, as there basically no time that a single change will > affect both, and I really do not like that churn =E2=80=93 while not a bi= ggie > it just is unnecessary churn, which I'm really not a fan of (and thus > highly probably want to rip this out sooner or later anyway). this is done now, see https://git.proxmox.com/?p=3Dproxmox-secure-boot-supp= ort.git;a=3Dsummary