Andrey Grozin wrote: > This means that no user of the musl profiles has ever been able to emerge > all these packages (because they did not have sbcl). And all these > packages should be pmasked in the musl profiles.
Is the last sentence actually true? Shouldn't only ebuilds with actual problems be masked? Even if there's currently no possibility to emerge other packages which depend on that it seems incorrect to mask those other packages only because a dependency can't be emerged? I don't think portage cares; it will show sbcl masked if it is a dependency, right? Thanks //Peter
