Mark H Weaver <[email protected]> skribis: > [email protected] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > >> Leo Famulari <[email protected]> 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’.
