| 1 |
> On 2 Dec 2022, at 19:28, Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Andrey Grozin wrote: |
| 4 |
>> This means that no user of the musl profiles has ever been able to emerge |
| 5 |
>> all these packages (because they did not have sbcl). And all these |
| 6 |
>> packages should be pmasked in the musl profiles. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Is the last sentence actually true? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Shouldn't only ebuilds with actual problems be masked? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Even if there's currently no possibility to emerge other packages |
| 13 |
> which depend on that it seems incorrect to mask those other packages |
| 14 |
> only because a dependency can't be emerged? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
No, that's not how it works, because right now, you can end up |
| 17 |
with something that depends on sbcl on a musl system where |
| 18 |
you can't actually install it. |
Archives