Bug 166377

OK there is one odd thing to be spotted here immediately. The version
is "R10B" which I know for sure is Ericsson-internal revision numbering.
Have you made sure that this will work with RPM upgrades? Is it really OK
for the revision to start with a letter?

The number scheme means next release in R10 will be R10C through R10Z, but then
the real trouble starts, because after that R10AA will follow (I believe)
and that might not work so well with RPM, I believe it will be considered
a lesser version than R10Z... Of course if the revision policy is such that
Erlang will never pass beyond R10Z it will be OK, if and only if the "R" first
in the revision number is OK, as stated in the previous remark.

Please test and clarify this.

(In reply to comment #1)
> The number scheme means next release in R10 will be R10C through R10Z, but then
> the real trouble starts, because after that R10AA will follow (I believe)
> and that might not work so well with RPM, I believe it will be considered
> a lesser version than R10Z... Of course if the revision policy is such that
> Erlang will never pass beyond R10Z it will be OK, if and only if the "R" first
> in the revision number is OK, as stated in the previous remark.
You are right, this doesnt work, R10AA is before R10Z. I dont think releases
will reach past R10Z before R11. However maybe another version naming scheme
might be better. Any suggestions?

Off the cuff: 
1) Don't worry, there's lots of space between B and Z, bump epoch if needed 
2) erlang-R10-x.B%{?dist}, handle "stuff" by bumping x as appropriate 

Erlang R10 revisions progressing beyond R10Z is unlikely, so I
believe Villes idea 1) to use Epoch for this situation, would it ever
occur, should be OK. Problem solved.

* in ./configure there is a mention that no odbc library has been found. Please
add unixODBC-deve to the buildrequirements

* redirect the output of the post scriptlet to /dev/null to avoid "Building SASL
boot script ..." message

* in %install, change "lib" to "%{_lib}" (different on x86_64)

* in %post, change /usr/lib to %{_libdir}

* possible improvements 
 - split the HTML doc in a separate package
 - add /usr/lib/erlang/man in the manpath (eg via a file in /etc/profile.d)

* rpmlint is extremely unhappy, but I don't know what is relevant there. Please
have a look.

I don't know erlang to I can't test it properly, but at least it does not
complain when I run "erlc -h"

Apart from that :
* Source otp_src_R10B-6.tar.gz is the same as upstream
* Source otp_doc_html_R10B-6.tar.gz is the same as upstream
* Source otp_doc_man_R10B-6.tar.gz is the same as upstream
* The BuildRoot is the preferred one
* Builds fine in mock
* File list looks OK

SRPM: http://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/4/i386/SRPMS.gemi/erlang-R10B-6.2.src.rpm
SPEC: http://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/spec/erlang.spec

- change /usr/lib to %{_libdir}
- redirect output in %post to /dev/null
- add unixODBC-devel to BuildRequires
- split doc off to erlang-doc package

some cleanup in the file list (permissions, etc...)
the remaining output of rpmlint can be ignored, IMHO, it doesn't make much sense
splitting off a -devel package.

Looks good. One last thing: "perl" in BuildRequired, and it's one of the
exceptions (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Exceptions)
Please remove it and you'll be approved for import in CVS

One thing again: the configure seems to check for gcj for the java lib. It it
works, it could be useful to add it to the BR.

SPEC: http://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/spec/erlang.spec
* Tue Sep  6 2005 Gerard Milmeister <gemi> - R10B-6.3
- Remove perl BuildRequires

gcj is detected but a full jdk is needed, probably this is a stub
for future support of gcj.

Allright, go ahead and import.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: erlang
New Branches: EL-4 EL-5
Updated EPEL Owners: lemenkov,gemi

cvs done. 
Per the new procedure, please use Fedora Account names instead of email from now on.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: erlang
New Branches: EL-5
Owners: gemi peter

Hopefully, this is the right place for this, I was wondering if you could push R12B5 to EL-5.  It seems to be in fedora, so hopefully not a big deal?  Thanks.

Hello Anthony.
R12B-5 already packaged, but still resides in epel-testing (maintainers cannot control moves from epel-testing to epel, so it will be here until the next such move).

You may install it by typing

sudo yum install erlang --enablerepo epel-testing

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: erlang
InitialCC: erlang-sig

Done.