From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:43480) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1j1Fd5-0005Xv-N3 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 15:26:04 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1j1Fd4-0000Gm-Lj for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 15:26:03 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:49529) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1j1Fd4-0000GQ-IF for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 15:26:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1j1Fd4-00033B-BQ for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 15:26:02 -0500 Subject: [bug#39146] [PATCH v2] gnu: icecat: Remove compiler paths from about:buildconfig Resent-Message-ID: From: Mark H Weaver In-Reply-To: <20200210183831.7evt4ci6r3qtgfm5@gravity> References: <20200115222115.322ymuuqkwlnbl3v@zdrowyportier.kadziolka.net> <20200121173711.5gegrl233dtjneni@zdrowyportier.kadziolka.net> <20200121185202.4cfbdc37@scratchpost.org> <87muaf6v81.fsf@netris.org> <20200123083738.c5wd3mx2bk3a5xy7@zdrowyportier.kadziolka.net> <87k15h7eeg.fsf@netris.org> <20200210183831.7evt4ci6r3qtgfm5@gravity> Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 15:24:09 -0500 Message-ID: <871rr2nqbf.fsf@netris.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Jakub =?UTF-8?Q?K=C4=85dzio=C5=82ka?= Cc: Danny Milosavljevic , Marius Bakke , Tobias Geerinckx-Rice , 39146@debbugs.gnu.org Hi Jakub, Jakub K=C4=85dzio=C5=82ka wrote: > However, now that I come back to this after some time, I realize that > there is another solution: >=20 > (string-append store (string-take hash 8) "" > (string-drop hash 8)) >=20 > This would neuter the reference without having any user-visible impact on > about:buildconfig. What do you think? Great idea, I think this is the right approach. Would you like to propose a patch and test it? Thank you! Mark