[arch-dev-public] Versioned Provisions

[Dan McGee]

> 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 at 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 at 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