On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Eric Griffith wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 11:40:05 -0400
>> Eric Griffith wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > There was, once upon a time, but I'm having trouble tracking it down.
>> >
>> > What's more interesting is..
On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 13:13:45 -0400
Eric Griffith wrote:
>
> uname -r says
>
> 4.6.0-0.rc1.git0.1.fc25.x86_64
>
> dnf info kernel:
>
> Name: kernel
> Arch: x86_64
> Epoch : 0
> Version : 4.6.0
> Release : 0.rc1.git0.1.fc25
> Size: 0.0
> Repo: @Syst
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 11:40:05 -0400
> Eric Griffith wrote:
>
> >
> > There was, once upon a time, but I'm having trouble tracking it down.
> >
> > What's more interesting is.. I've got a system in front of me, and I
> > just installed rawhide-
On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 11:40:05 -0400
Eric Griffith wrote:
>
> There was, once upon a time, but I'm having trouble tracking it down.
>
> What's more interesting is.. I've got a system in front of me, and I
> just installed rawhide-nodebug on it. Recreated Grub, rebooted,
> picked that entry from t
On Mar 29, 2016 11:25, "Kevin Fenzi" wrote:
>
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 11:07:56 -0400
> Eric Griffith wrote:
>
> > Question!
> >
> > Are Alpha images signed to work with Secure Boot? There's a bug Id
> > like to test out once I'm home, but both of my computer's get angry
> > if I turn off Secure Boo
On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 11:07:56 -0400
Eric Griffith wrote:
> Question!
>
> Are Alpha images signed to work with Secure Boot? There's a bug Id
> like to test out once I'm home, but both of my computer's get angry
> if I turn off Secure Boot / the images aren't signed.
Yes.
> As a side point: does
