On 03/24/08, Jim Walker wrote: > Raymond Xiong wrote: > >On 03/24/08, Jim Walker wrote: > >>>Interfaces > >>>========== > >>> > >>> SUNWerlang-r12b Uncommitted Package Name > >>> SUNWerlang-r12b-doc Uncommitted Package Name > >>Would more general SUNWerlang and SUNWerlang-doc package names > >>be better? > >> > >>I don't see a need to track the version in the package names. > >>It looks like around four new versions of erlang are released > >>each year. > > > >Jim, > > > >Major new Erlang release came out every 1-2 years in the > >past. I guess those versions you mentioned were patch releases. > > > > Right. I was thinking of patch releases. > > > > >What I propose is to support multiple releases(ie., R11B, R12B) > >and use the latest patch releases of them(ie., R11B-5, R12B-1). > >For the purpose, separated package name and installation directory > >is needed for each release. > > > > This may be ok, to maintain backwards compatibility. Do you see > a specific need to have older versions of erlang on a system > instead of just having the most recent version?
I don't have specific reason, but I observed other language(ie., Ruby, Java, Perl, etc.) were all packaged in this way. I think it's good to have this flexibility? Because Erlang/OTP R12B release is rather new, it is probably not well tested and supported for some applications. For example, below is from ejabberd README on which Erlang version to use: "Erlang/OTP R10B-9 up to R11B-5. Erlang R12 releases are not yet officially supported, and are not recommended for production servers" -- Regards, Raymond
