| 1 Jun 2021 |
 Finn Behrens | Does {20, 1, 0} says anything to anybody here? Elixir reports me this as system. uname -a says 20.6.0. Any ideas what this number is? | 17:11:09 |
 LnL | depends where you got that from, but I would suspect that's the otp release | 17:13:10 |
| Finn Behrens | It's from :os.version. Interesting for me is that I see a similar number when i do uname -a | 17:14:10 |
| Finn Behrens | On macos (m1). That's why I guessed it is some version from macos. But I don't know which | 17:14:48 |
 mjlbach | Ah I found it | 17:16:02 |
| LnL | hmm indeed, on linux that's the kernel version so maybe xnu? | 17:16:15 |
| LnL | yeah Darwin Kernel Version 19.6.0 | 17:16:31 |
| Finn Behrens | this is further down: root:xnu-7195.140.13.0.1~20/RELEASE_ARM64_T8101 | 17:16:34 |
| Finn Behrens | ok, thanks | 17:16:42 |
| Finn Behrens | I guess erlang saves which kernel compiled the binary | 17:16:59 |
| LnL | for me that matches the running kernel version | 17:18:38 |
| Finn Behrens | Not for me, my iex comes from nix. shrug | 17:19:19 |
| LnL | so does mine, but it's possible this specific build was compiled on the catalina machine | 17:20:32 |
| Finn Behrens | I think I never will do that low level with elixir, that this will be important :-) | 17:21:11 |
| LnL | heh | 17:21:57 |
| * LnL continues hacking on his nerves project :D | 17:22:09 |
|  prusnak changed their display name from stick to prusnak. | 18:04:49 |
|  telent joined the room. | 19:22:21 |
 toonn | LnL: So, the bootstrap-tools seem to still build fine. Added a commit which uses lib.getLib for most of the /lib outputs and only tested that on the second bootstrap-tools, i.e., the one with the first passed to stdenv, produced the same output hash so I think it's fine. | 19:52:40 |
| toonn | Next step is to push it to the PR and change the target branch to master? | 19:52:58 |
| LnL | context? | 20:22:45 |
| toonn | The LLVM 11 bump. | 20:23:15 |
| toonn | #121055 | 20:23:21 |
| LnL | oh right, sounds good :D | 20:23:29 |
| LnL | ris_: based on going through the llvm pr I see we already have patches for cmake to remove frameworks | 20:25:58 |
 ris_ | cool | 20:26:27 |
| LnL | if you wanted a precedent for the curl situation, that said using normal options instead having to patch stuff for these cases would be nice | 20:27:57 |
| ris_ | yeah i think for the medium term that sounds like a sensible plan | 20:28:56 |
| ris_ | if curl go on to use frameworks more thoroughly, then that might be time to rethink | 20:29:25 |
| LnL | if I go back I see I made it conditional for bootstrapping initially now it's always just patched out | 20:29:33 |
