Dan McGee wrote:
What this does *NOT* mean is that versioned provisions will ever be supported. This is the reason we did not go with the = sign originally- it might lead packagers to believe they were supported. Versioned provisions really don't make sense- if someone can provide a use case, I can probably debunk it.
On Jan 17, 2008 6:19 PM, Xavier <shiningxc@gmail.com> wrote:
Just to clarify, what Dan meant here is that the only supported operator is = (no >=, <=, >, <).
On Jan 17, 2008 6:19 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
Um, I think you misspoke a little here. I assume you meant to add something other than "versioned provisions will ever be supported". I'd guess, based on context, you meant to indicate the ">=" and "<=" stuff, right?
Err...sorry guys! Aaron and Xavier are completely correct here. I meant to say that versioned *operators* are not supported if that makes any more sense, or in easier terms, <=, >=, <, and < are not supported. Thanks for catching this. -Dan