On Jan 17, 2008 5:50 PM, Dan McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > forget the quotes on their provision (even Aaron did it above!). If we
Hah, but I know bash parsing rules! > 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. 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?
