On Wednesday, 10 November 2004, at 14:31:10 (-0500), Jeff Johnson wrote: > Technically no, but it really doesn't matter much. The > range ">=" is equivalent to promising "forever", and > no one, certainly not me, can make that promise. > > FWIW, the comparison matches > Provides: rpmlib(ConcurrentAccess) <= 4.1-1 > another closed range that makes no promise of "forever", > that perhaps permits retrofitting alternative incompatible > implementations in earlier versions of rpm, but let's not go > there *really*. Does rpmlib(foo) = X implicitly provide rpmlib(foo) <= X? Looks like that's the bit I missed. :) Michael -- Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX) http://www.kainx.org/ <mej@xxxxxxxxx> n + 1, Inc., http://www.nplus1.net/ Author, Eterm (www.eterm.org) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "We're Americans; we don't walk around terrified. We're going to move forward with pride and with determination." -- Secretary of State Colin Powell _______________________________________________ Rpm-list mailing list Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
