Hi! First I refer to this old mail: http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2007-July/008701.html (s/depend/requiredby in that subject <- this 'audacious-plugins depends on audacious logic' is so confusing to me;-) So how can we "predict" the future? A possible solution (from crazy@FW) we use foo<2.0 dependency of bar, which indicates that only foo 1.x dependency is expected to work with bar. For example, then the packager can add both foo>=1.3 and foo<1.4 dependencies to his bar 1.3 package (foo 1.4 may work, but probably won't). And this will prevent users from upgrading foo 1.3 to foo 1.4 without dependency break (see the confusing audacious example above: audacious-plugins 1.3.5 is not expected to work with audacious-player 1.4.x). So my definition of foo<2.0: foo<=2.0 holds, but foo=2.0 doesn't. Bye, ngaba PS: I don't know whether foo>1.0 would be useful or not, maybe with conflicts only (<- predicted conflict ;-), but if we implemented '<', then probably we would implement '>' to enjoy the symmetry.