From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name>
Subject: Re: armhf build machines
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 13:28:17 -0500
Message-ID: <20151207182817.GA24951@jasmine>
References: <20151207111424.6297eea2@debian-netbook>
	<20151207103646.GA5390@debian.eduroam.u-bordeaux.fr>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60993)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <leo@famulari.name>) id 1a60WL-0007cK-Vn
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Dec 2015 13:28:22 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <leo@famulari.name>) id 1a60WH-0005S9-Jk
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Dec 2015 13:28:21 -0500
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.28]:45091)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <leo@famulari.name>) id 1a60WH-0005S1-GT
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Dec 2015 13:28:17 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20151207103646.GA5390@debian.eduroam.u-bordeaux.fr>
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org

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?

> Andreas
> 
>