Just to give me an idea of what you are currently working with, are all these ones in BC separate beefy ampere servers or chunks of one? https://db.debian.org/machines.cgi
Like if we donated something like this (I can nab some ecc ddr4 as well to max it to 256GB) Would it even make a dent in build throughput? https://www.ebay.com/itm/236143691826 On Sat, Aug 16, 2025 at 6:24 PM Timothy Pearson < [email protected]> wrote: > The Debian infrastructure team generally wants physical hardware for > security reasons, which is also my default stance so I definitely > understand it. This does make supporting specialized architectures (arm64 > server is definitely specialized vs. amd64/ppc64el) more difficult, however. > > I'd guess getting them something like the ASA1901-ALTRA-R would be most > practical Note the RAM support maxes out at 256GB, so (at least in my > experience) that means you'll have to stay under 128 cores so as to avoid > OOM. It's also not exactly cheap... > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Andres Salomon" <[email protected]> > > To: "Ryan Kuba" <[email protected]>, [email protected] > > Cc: "Timothy Pearson" <[email protected]> > > Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2025 11:15:52 AM > > Subject: Re: Bug#1111208: closed by Andres Salomon <[email protected]> > (Re: Bug#1111208: Trixie Chromium Arm64 build > > failure) > > > Tim is in a similar situation with ppc64le builds; maybe he has > > suggestions? I don't know how to donate hardware for buildds, other than > > what https://www.debian.org/donations says (under "Equipment and > > Services"). I'm not sure if the buildd admins want physical in-house > > hardware, or if they'd accept cloud service donations as well. > > > > On 8/16/25 09:19, Ryan Kuba wrote: > >> Andres, > >> > >> Thanks for all the info and that is unfortunate about build times, I > >> have built chromium from source before it is heavy. Do you all need help > >> with Arm64 infra? > >> > >> We found Oracle ampere instances to be the best fit for us building > >> natively and are free for 4 cores and 24gb. This is not an empty offer > >> or just spitballing I want to help other open source projects out and we > >> maintain our own build nodes while also helping other projects where we > >> can. https://ci.linuxserver.io/ <https://ci.linuxserver.io/> > >> > >> I would have to talk to the team, but I would even be willing to sponsor > >> something like an RX170 out of pocket at Hetzner if you are interested, > >> I don't know much about Debian's build infra but given the powerhouse > >> you are it seems like there should be more help in this department and I > >> have enjoyed Debian for many years now. > >> > >> Ryan Kuba > >> > >> On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 5:33 PM Debian Bug Tracking System > >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> > >> This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report > >> which was filed against the chromium package: > >> > >> #1111208: Trixie Chromium Arm64 build failure > >> > >> It has been closed by Andres Salomon <[email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>>. > >> > >> Their explanation is attached below along with your original report. > >> If this explanation is unsatisfactory and you have not received a > >> better one in a separate message then please contact Andres Salomon > >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> by > >> replying to this email. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> 1111208: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1111208 > >> <https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1111208> > >> Debian Bug Tracking System > >> Contact [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> with > >> problems > >> > >> > >> > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >> From: Andres Salomon <[email protected] <mailto: > [email protected]>> > >> To: Ryan Kuba <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, > >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > >> Cc: > >> Bcc: > >> Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2025 13:30:06 -0400 > >> Subject: Re: Bug#1111208: Trixie Chromium Arm64 build failure > >> Hi, > >> > >> Thanks for the bug report, but it's not lost - it's just building > very > >> slowly. This unfortunately is common for armhf and arm64, about > half of > >> the buildds for those architectures are fast, and the other half are > >> very slow (taking almost 3 days to build chromium). > >> > >> * chromium/arm64 > >> | chromium: > >> | Package : chromium > >> | Version : 139.0.7258.127-1~deb13u1 > >> | Builder : buildd_arm64-arm-ubc-01 > >> | State : Building > >> | Section : misc > >> | Priority : optional > >> | Previous-State : Needs-Build > >> | State-Change : 2025-08-13 21:07:14.301937 > >> | CalculatedPri : 420 > >> | component : main > >> | Distribution : trixie-security > >> | Notes : uncompiled > >> | State-Days : 1 > >> | State-Time : 158899 > >> > >> The worst part is that I don't always notice right away when the > build > >> fails for an architecture, so it's actually useful to have users > file > >> bugs (or at least email me) when they notice something is missing! > But > >> users also can't see the buildd status, so they won't know whether > the > >> build for their architecture failed, or if the buildd is just being > >> slow. 🤷 > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Andres > >> > >> > >> On 8/15/25 10:31, Ryan Kuba wrote: > >> > Package: chromium > >> > > >> > Version: 139.0.7258.127-1~deb13u1 > >> > > >> > > >> > It looks like the build for arm64 recently failed or got lost for > >> Chromium: > >> > > >> > https://packages.debian.org/trixie/chromium <https:// > >> packages.debian.org/trixie/chromium> <https://packages.debian.org/ > >> trixie/chromium <https://packages.debian.org/trixie/chromium>> > >> > > >> > Normally this is not an issue the user just gets an old package > >> but in > >> > this case it prevents chromium-l10n from being installed and does > >> not > >> > allow installation if that package is installed. > >> > > >> > 20.14 The following packages have unmet dependencies: > >> > 20.14 chromium-l10n : Depends: chromium (>= > >> 139.0.7258.127-1~deb13u1) > >> > but 138.0.7204.183-1 is to be installed > >> > 20.14 E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken > packages. > >> > 20.14 E: The following information from --solver 3.0 may provide > >> > additional context: > >> > 20.14 Unable to satisfy dependencies. Reached two conflicting > >> decisions: > >> > 20.14 1. chromium-l10n:arm64=139.0.7258.127-1~deb13u1 is > >> selected for > >> > install > >> > 20.14 2. chromium-l10n:arm64=139.0.7258.127-1~deb13u1 Depends > >> > chromium (>= 139.0.7258.127-1~deb13u1) > >> > 20.14 but none of the choices are installable: > >> > 20.14 [no choices] > >> > > >> > If you need any more information please let me know. > >> > > >> > Ryan Kuba > >> > > >> > >> > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >> From: Ryan Kuba <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > >> To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>> > >> Cc: > >> Bcc: > >> Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2025 14:31:00 +0000 > >> Subject: Trixie Chromium Arm64 build failure > >> > >> Package: chromium > >> > >> Version: 139.0.7258.127-1~deb13u1 > >> > >> > >> It looks like the build for arm64 recently failed or got lost for > >> Chromium: > >> > >> https://packages.debian.org/trixie/chromium > >> <https://packages.debian.org/trixie/chromium> > >> > >> Normally this is not an issue the user just gets an old package but > >> in this case it prevents chromium-l10n from being installed and does > >> not allow installation if that package is installed. > >> > >> 20.14 The following packages have unmet dependencies: > >> 20.14 chromium-l10n : Depends: chromium (>= > >> 139.0.7258.127-1~deb13u1) but 138.0.7204.183-1 is to be installed > >> 20.14 E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages. > >> 20.14 E: The following information from --solver 3.0 may provide > >> additional context: > >> 20.14 Unable to satisfy dependencies. Reached two conflicting > >> decisions: > >> 20.14 1. chromium-l10n:arm64=139.0.7258.127-1~deb13u1 is selected > >> for install > >> 20.14 2. chromium-l10n:arm64=139.0.7258.127-1~deb13u1 Depends > >> chromium (>= 139.0.7258.127-1~deb13u1) > >> 20.14 but none of the choices are installable: > >> 20.14 [no choices] > >> > >> If you need any more information please let me know. > >> > >> Ryan Kuba >
