> On 2 Dec 2022, at 19:28, Peter Stuge <pe...@stuge.se> wrote: > > 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?
No, that's not how it works, because right now, you can end up with something that depends on sbcl on a musl system where you can't actually install it.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
