Update provision requirements check to allow exact matches

[tzumainn]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1472420

[tzumainn]

@gmcculloug Do you think updating the provisioning requirements check like this is okay?

[miq-bot]

Checked commit tzumainn@f3d6003 with ruby 2.2.6, rubocop 0.47.1, and haml-lint 0.20.0
1 file checked, 0 offenses detected
Everything looks fine. 🍪

[gmcculloug]

@tzumainn Yes, I think you want the minimum flavor to be included in the list, where it is skipped today.

@bdunne made the initial change here, maybe he recalls if there was a reason to use <= in the condition.

[aufi]

Looks good to me, merging.

Anyway it would be great if @bdunne put his ack on this change too.

[bdunne]

👍

[simaishi]

Fine backport (to manageiq repo) details:

$ git log -1
commit b82ee02ee90afa931746acfb7a90251801f82622
Author: Marek Aufart <[email protected]>
Date:   Mon Aug 14 15:57:44 2017 +0200

    Merge pull request #72 from tzumainn/provision-check-update
    
    Update provision requirements check to allow exact matches
    (cherry picked from commit 48424c966ddbd2e58b536d4fa239a40466e8280f)
    
    https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1481449

[simaishi]

Euwe backport (to manageiq repo) details:

$ git log -1
commit cf485f7599abbdbe9626d3cebfcfd94fc8eb47c5
Author: Marek Aufart <[email protected]>
Date:   Mon Aug 14 15:57:44 2017 +0200

    Merge pull request #72 from tzumainn/provision-check-update
    
    Update provision requirements check to allow exact matches
    (cherry picked from commit 48424c966ddbd2e58b536d4fa239a40466e8280f)
    
    https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1481869