[aur-general] [arch-dev-public] Versioned Provisions

[Xavier]

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.
>

Just to clarify, what Dan meant here is that the only supported operator 
is = (no >=, <=, >, <).