> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
