Creating a Target System versus OTP Release Handling Tutorial (xml)

[Gunilla Arendt]

In "Creating a First Target System" (a chapter in "System Principles") 
it is described how to make a target system consisting of a number of 
Erlang/OTP applications together with a number of user-defined 
applications, all in one "package". One can say you create an 
alternative version of the Erlang/OTP release, where all unused 
Erlang/OTP applications are removed and your own applications are added 
instead. All applications are located under ROOT/lib, where ROOT is the 
root directory of this target system.

In OTP Release Handling Tutorial (at trapexit.org), the target system 
instead consists of an existing Erlang/OTP release "as is" together with 
a number of user-defined applications located in a separate lib directory.

About which one is preferable: In my opinion, either way is fine.

The error report means that the module systools is not found.

/ Gunilla

Dietmar Schaefer wrote:
> Hi !
> 
> 
> I have some problems understanding the main difference in both mentioned
> tutorials.
> 
> The purpose is - as far as I can see - the same but the procedure is  
> different.
> 
> 
> 
> Which way is preferable ?
> 
> 
> 
> Under R10B-5:
> 
> systools:make_script("cmmc",[{path,["/home/dietmar/cmmc-foc/lib/cmmc-1.0/ebin"]}]). 
> 
> 
> =ERROR REPORT==== 22-Jun-2005::10:30:26 ===
> Error in process <0.29.0> with exit value: 
> {undef,[{systools,make_script,["cmmc",[{path,["/home/dietmar/cmmc-foc/lib/cmmc-1.0/ebin"]}]]},{erl_eval,do_apply,5},{shell,exprs,6},{shell,eval_loop,3}]} 
> 
> 
> ** exited: {undef,[{systools,make_script,
>                             ["cmmc",
>                              
> [{path,["/home/dietmar/cmmc-foc/lib/cmmc-1.0/ebin"]}]]},
>                   {erl_eval,do_apply,5},
>                   {shell,exprs,6},
>                   {shell,eval_loop,3}]} **
> 
> 
> 
> Under R10-B4:
> *WARNING* snmp: Source code not found: snmp.erl
> .
> .
> .*WARNING* snmp: Source code not found: snmp_verbosity.erl
> ok
> 
> 
> The warnings were addressed by another email  and that shouldn't be a 
> problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Dietmar