Re: armhf build machines

[ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)]

Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org> skribis:

> ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> skribis:
>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 11:36:46AM +0100, Andreas Enge wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 11:14:24AM +0200, Efraim Flashner wrote:
>>>> > The impression I got from looking at the build farm thank-yous on the website
>>>> > was that we have lowered requirements for what we're looking for in armhf
>>>> > build machines, at least in terms of RAM. In terms of freedom the Raspberry
>>>> > Pi 2 isn't great, but in terms of cost its pretty inexpensive.  Is this
>>>> > something we'd be interested in?
>>>> 
>>>> We are waiting for two new Novena boards that should arrive before the
>>>> end of the year. The current bottleneck is not the build machines, but hydra;
>>>> already now the build farm could sustain more jobs in parallel, but we
>>>> artificially limit them. So I would say that there is currently no need
>>>> to add more build machines. This may change if we get a physical machine
>>>> for hydra.
>>>
>>> What sort of machine would be appropriate for hydra?
>>
>> Something rather big: say 8+ cores, 16+G RAM, fast disk of 3T at least.
>
> I would also add that it should run Libreboot, for which the ASUS
> KGPE-D16 is currently the best supported server-class motherboard.

Right, I would prefer it as well; I hope we can find such rackable
servers.

If it turns out that all we can buy in practice is an ME-backdoored
server, I *might* be willing to take it, with the understanding that it
would become less and less of a single point of trust (assuming more of
our package builds become reproducible, and other users publish binaries
as well.)

WDYT?

Ludo’.