Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
> AND is already the implicit combinator. Thus simply listing both these
> atoms
> gives what you want:
>
> > =some-cat/foo-4.0
> <some-cat/foo-4.3
>
> Still a special syntax for ranges seems like a good idea. If only portage
> would not upgrade past such specifications (and downgrade the next time).
Sorry; I made a mistake on my second example. Meant to say
( && >=some-cat/foo-4.1 <some-cat/foo-4.3 )
to imply that there were versions *less* than 4.1 that should not be
picked up.
I'm not hung up *at all* on the syntax, though, and just modeled my
example after the existing OR syntax.
- John
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
