Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 26420 - new erlang out
Summary: new erlang out
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Gentoo Linux
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Current packages (show other bugs)
Hardware: All Linux
: High enhancement (vote)
Assignee: George Shapovalov (RETIRED)
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2003-08-11 13:05 UTC by SpanKY
Modified: 2004-02-29 13:25 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description SpanKY gentoo-dev 2003-08-11 13:05:25 UTC
R9C-0 is out ...
the ebuild is going to have to be re-versioned in order to take into account
the way erlang version tags their releases ...

since their releases over the last year have been:
R7B-0, R7B-1, R7B-2, R7B-3, R7B-4, R8B-0, R8B-1, R8B-2, R9B-0, R9B-1, R9C-0
i would suggest the following portage to erlang matching:
R7B-0: 7.0b
R7B-1: 7.1b
R7B-2: 7.2b
R7B-3: 7.3b
R8B-2: 8.2b
R9C-0: 9.0c

that means the current ebuild in portage (9c-r1) is going to not play well with
the new version scheme ... i'd suggest just deleting all the ebuilds and starting
over with the new schema
Comment 1 Frederico Freire Boaventura 2003-09-29 13:27:41 UTC
I'm getting an error while trying to install erlang-9c and erlang-9c-r1.
 The error is triggered when all compilation are done and install is begining,
I'll past the tail of stdout with error message here:

make[2]: Leaving directory `/var/tmp/portage/erlang-9c/work/otp_src_R9B-1/erts/boot/src'
make[1]: Leaving directory `/var/tmp/portage/erlang-9c/work/otp_src_R9B-1/erts/boot/src'
cd /var/tmp/portage/erlang-9c/image//usr/lib/erlang && ./Install -minimal
/var/tmp/portage/erlang-9c/image//usr/lib/erlang
/bin/sh: line 1: ./Install: No such file or directory
make: *** [install.Install] Error 127

!!! ERROR: dev-lang/erlang-9c failed.
!!! Function src_install, Line 31, Exitcode 2
!!! (no error message)
Comment 2 SpanKY gentoo-dev 2003-09-29 18:49:22 UTC
do not post unrelated bug reports to this bug
Comment 3 George Shapovalov (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2003-10-14 12:37:30 UTC
Hi guys.

First a shorter one.
Frederico: you may want to try 9c-r1 once again. The -r1 has fixed the problem
you reported and recently had a fix for sandbox violation added, which you
probably encountered when you were trying -r1 earlier.


SpanKY: Well, I am aware of erlang naming scheme for a while now, and what
I can say - there is a problem :).

For one handling of trailing letters by portage is quite weird: thus for
example 9.1c will be considered older than 9c and your proposed scheme won't
work. In fact the only reasonable working versioning that was suggested (and
it was discussed before a few times) involves completely getting read of
letters. Like going 9b => 9.2, 9c => 9.3. This should solve the R9B1 problem
(due to which numbering shifted and B1 became 9c) - such version would become
9.2.1.

But what will we do if erlang people decide to release something like 9.1C?
Are we guaranteed to not encounter this?

Another issue is compatibility. There are few apps that deend on erlang,
therefore I would rather defer the versioning scheme change. 10x versions
would allow to do this cleanely without having to do a complete renaming.
I have asked on the -dev and few responses from erlang users seemed to indicate
willingness to live with confused versioning util 10x gets released, in order
to avoid drastic renaming.


So, now with 9c out and our versions only one letter away we have the following
options:

1. I add R9C as 9d to make sure it is the latest one.

2. Add it as 9c-r2. Well, this is a new version, so this would be a breach
of policy, but on the other hand, this *is* 9C.

3. Add it as 9c-r2 and remove all other 9c ebuilds. All is well and corresponding
now in the tree, but this screws the stable version, unless I add 9c as stable
immediately, which is bad.
Another approach would be to add it as 9c-r2 and remove all previous when
-r2 becomes stable. However I would rather have versions <9c removed before
- updates are for the purpose after all.

All in all I am smewhere in between options 1 and 2..

Claes: you were active on previous erlang bugs, what would be your opinion?

George
Comment 4 Claes Wikstrom 2003-10-15 01:41:24 UTC
What about skipping the weird naming scheme erlang has. The R9C type of names
are actually an ancient naming scheme used in a *by now since long) retired
IBM system used internally at ericsson to maintain the sourcecode for the
AXE telephone stations.

However, each release of erlang has a number of components, the kernel component
is the emulator itself, the code the executes the erlang virtual machine.
This is called "erts", Erlang Runtime System.

- erts has a new version number in all erlang releases, this will always
be the    case since software upgrade (uninterupted) doesn't work otherwise.

- erts has a normal naming/numbering scheme current version is 5.3

- the erts version is the number displayed by the shell when the system starts

#  erl
Erlang (BEAM) emulator version 5.3 [source] [hipe]

Eshell V5.3  (abort with ^G)
1> 


- the erts version is also returned by the built in function

1> erlang:system_info(system_version).
"Erlang (BEAM) emulator version 5.3 [source] [hipe]\n"



Just a suggestion to get away from the weird R naming scheme erlang uses.
Comment 5 charlie mac 2003-12-11 21:11:00 UTC
Well I just added a recommendation to the naming convention on 30364 before seeing this bug. Essentially: ignore the first R and then convert the subsequent letters to numbers where R8B-0 = erlang-8.2.0, R8B-1 = erlang-8.2.1, R9C-0 = erlang-9.3.0 ...etc. where A=1, B=2,...
Comment 6 SpanKY gentoo-dev 2004-02-21 04:37:21 UTC
ive just added erlang-9c-r2 to portage, could you guys try it out ?
Comment 7 charlie mac 2004-02-22 18:31:43 UTC
This 9c-r2 emerges fine for me. Furthermore I'm able to emerge and run wings with it as well. So with that noted limited scope, it works for me! :) 
Comment 8 SpanKY gentoo-dev 2004-02-29 13:25:26 UTC
ok, 9c-r2 is now stable, thanks everyone