Hi Saul,
On 07/20/2017 08:24 AM, Wold, Saul wrote:
On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 00:09 +, Wold, Saul wrote:
On Wed, 2017-07-12 at 19:42 -0700, Robert Yang wrote:
Update it for cryptodev-module 1.9.
Not sure what happened, but I am getting the following failures in
the
World build. I seem to b
On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 00:09 +, Wold, Saul wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-07-12 at 19:42 -0700, Robert Yang wrote:
> >
> > Update it for cryptodev-module 1.9.
> >
>
> Not sure what happened, but I am getting the following failures in
> the
> World build. I seem to be OK building this on a local machi
On Wed, 2017-07-12 at 19:42 -0700, Robert Yang wrote:
> Update it for cryptodev-module 1.9.
>
Not sure what happened, but I am getting the following failures in the
World build. I seem to be OK building this on a local machine.
http://yocto-ab-master.jf.intel.com:8012/builders/nightly-meta-inte
On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 16:56 -0700, California Sullivan wrote:
> In the future more secure boot implementations will be offered, with
> each one needing the signing method. Instead of repeating a forty line
> block of code across several recipes, just use a configurable bbclass.
Looks good to me, a
On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 15:42 -0700, Cal Sullivan wrote:
> >> Adding the signing portion like this would make my goal a bit harder.
> > The code can always be refactored, as long as the end-result is the same
> > (do_uefiapp_deploy puts signed bootx64.efi into the rootfs).
> Shouldn't be an issue.
