I think editing the systemwide template should be discouraged. Is it perhaps an issue of
the linux-image-unsigned-XXX package? Shouldn't it simply Provide linux-image-XXX?
I am also not sure why some arch specific builds (e.g., amd64, arm64) have an -unsigned binary
package and other don't (e.g., i386).
This package contains the binary kernel image and pre-built binary modules for a particular arch/featureset/flavour combination, that are meant to be signed and copied into a package without the -unsigned suffix. There is normally no need to install these packages.
```
Does the above hold for linux-image-unsigned-5.2.0-050200rc6-generic_5.2.0-050200rc6.201906222033_amd64.deb?
I tend to believe that his is more an issue with the kernel mainline build rather than with DKMS.
I think editing the systemwide template should be discouraged. Is it perhaps an issue of unsigned- XXX package? Shouldn't it simply Provide linux-image-XXX?
the linux-image-
I am also not sure why some arch specific builds (e.g., amd64, arm64) have an -unsigned binary
package and other don't (e.g., i386).
Copying from https:/ /kernel- team.pages. debian. net/kernel- handbook/ ch-packaging. html#s- arch-dep: version- abiname[ -featureset] -flavour- unsigned
```
linux-image-
This package contains the binary kernel image and pre-built binary modules for a particular arch/featureset /flavour combination, that are meant to be signed and copied into a package without the -unsigned suffix. There is normally no need to install these packages. unsigned- 5.2.0-050200rc6 -generic_ 5.2.0-050200rc6 .201906222033_ amd64.deb?
```
Does the above hold for linux-image-
I tend to believe that his is more an issue with the kernel mainline build rather than with DKMS.