1 |
Andrey Grozin wrote: |
2 |
> This means that no user of the musl profiles has ever been able to emerge |
3 |
> all these packages (because they did not have sbcl). And all these |
4 |
> packages should be pmasked in the musl profiles. |
5 |
|
6 |
Is the last sentence actually true? |
7 |
|
8 |
Shouldn't only ebuilds with actual problems be masked? |
9 |
|
10 |
Even if there's currently no possibility to emerge other packages |
11 |
which depend on that it seems incorrect to mask those other packages |
12 |
only because a dependency can't be emerged? |
13 |
|
14 |
I don't think portage cares; it will show sbcl masked if it is a |
15 |
dependency, right? |
16 |
|
17 |
|
18 |
Thanks |
19 |
|
20 |
//Peter |