On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 12:18:17PM -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> Hmm, will the package maintainers have the freedom to not support
> users who have the secureboot enabled? How are we going to detect
> this?
Any piece of userspace can read the SecureBoot and SetupMode variables
and check that they're 1 and 0 respectively. But refusing to run in that
scenario would provide no extra security, so the only reason to do so
would be to warn the user that kernel functionality the application
depends on may not be available.
But if you mean "I philosophically object to secure boot and want to
prevent my packages from working on systems with it enabled" then yes,
that's clearly a thing you could do. I don't think it's worth discussing
whether it's something that you should do or something that would be
treated as a bug unless someone actually wants to do it.
As a package maintainer and contributor, since I am not a worker with
defined duties, I am free to draw my own circle of responsibility. Yes
it was rather a freedom (i.e. "could") question rather than a
"should"
question.
Thank you for the clarification.
Orcan