[Bug 1086983] Re: Signed grub doesn't depend on shim-signed

[dann frazier]

Yeah, it is a perfectly valid config to have grub2-signed installed and
not shim-signed. Say, if a user prefers to have Canonical's key in the
db but not Microsoft's. I'll therefore go ahead and close this as
Invalid.

** Changed in: grub2-signed (Ubuntu)
       Status: New => Invalid

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Foundations Bugs, which is subscribed to grub2-signed in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1086983

Title:
  Signed grub doesn't depend on shim-signed

Status in grub2-signed package in Ubuntu:
  Invalid

Bug description:
  On my system I needed shim-signed installed along side of grub2-signed
  in order to successfully secure boot an UEFI bios.

  ProblemType: Bug
  DistroRelease: Ubuntu 12.10
  Package: grub-efi-amd64-signed 1.9+2.00-7ubuntu11
  ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 3.5.0-19.30-generic 3.5.7
  Uname: Linux 3.5.0-19-generic x86_64
  ApportVersion: 2.6.1-0ubuntu6
  Architecture: amd64
  Date: Wed Dec  5 15:34:42 2012
  EcryptfsInUse: Yes
  InstallationDate: Installed on 2012-11-08 (26 days ago)
  InstallationMedia: Ubuntu 12.10 "Quantal Quetzal" - Release amd64 (20121017.5)
  MarkForUpload: True
  ProcEnviron:
   TERM=xterm
   PATH=(custom, no user)
   XDG_RUNTIME_DIR=<set>
   LANG=en_US.UTF-8
   SHELL=/bin/bash
  SourcePackage: grub2-signed
  UpgradeStatus: No upgrade log present (probably fresh install)

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/grub2-signed/+bug/1086983/+subscriptions