yes the targetplatformversion was a guess by me and @agross
can you manually try fix it somehow?

what should we emit? Or should just get rid of the targetplatform?

Okay, the TargetPlatformVersion is not the problem. Version 7.0 is right - which is strange because I'd expect it to be 4.6 because of the reference assembly path for the profile 32 is
C:\Program Files (x86)\Reference Assemblies\Microsoft\Framework.NETPortable\v4.6\Profile\Profile32

Anyway, the problem is the TargetFrameworkProfile. msbuild tells me it's "Profile32", not "win81 wpa81" for this project. So when I change this check, it works:
$(TargetFrameworkProfile) == 'Profile32'

please try 0.9.0-alpha002

do you know what net45-win8-wp8-wpa81 is? that's the other one in your sample. seems it's not listed in our inofficial list.

That's profile 259.

And yes, the new version fixes the problem in my specific case. But I see another, more general problem with PCLs: Paket checks for specific profiles, which is too restrictive. If I have a portable class library for win81 and wpa81, but the package only supports "net45 win8 wp8 wpa81", this is still fine. Because this package target supports a superset of what I need. I'm afraid the whole logic for PCLs needs to be way more complicated :(

I guess we need a compatibility tree with all profiles which tells us which profile is ok to include from which other profile. Then, of course, the references have to be prioritized correctly. If the package directly supports my profile, it's better to take this build than another one which supports more targets.

Maybe there's a simpler solution than the compatibility tree. We need to have a mapping between profile numbers and the supported platforms (I think you have that already). Then when a package has a build for net45-win8-wp8-wpa81 we can use it for every profile which targets a subset of these 4 platforms. So we construct all possible subsets, get the matching profile number and include that in the csproj file.

at the moment we do:

your solution sound like a real step forward.

hehe, perfect picture :)

if you are interested and have the time I'd love to see 2-3 examples of your idea. Then I could write test cases and try to implement it.

Sure. I'll get back to you later. I thought a lot about this since yesterday but I need to write it down and maybe implement something to see if it actually works.

catching fire? Nice.

@forki It's been a while, but here's what I came up with in the meantime: #380.