It took me quite a few years to arrive at an optimal mental model for thinking about the Erlang, ERTS and releases in the context of an operating system. It is a different enough method of thought that its worth talking about.
I think most folks have not yet come to a fundamental realization when it comes to Erlang, or more specifically, ERTS. That realization is that ERTS is a Virtual Machine in the classic sense. That is, it views each release as a complete self contained 'machine'. That concept is central to the way it expects releases to be organized and managed.
Once you get your mind around this idea that each release is a self contained machine, things begin to make more sense. For example, why are there only version numbers and not names in release directories and tarballs created by sys_tools? This is because an Erlang Release is a self contained universe, a complete machine Virtual Machine, sort of like an install of Linux. So asking why you cant have multiple releases in the same node is very similar to asking why linux only has one rc.d directory. It only has one because in the context of a machine only one 'operating system/bootstrapping system' makes sense.
So how do you integrate this very different module into the Unix-y way of doing things? The simple answer is that you don't.
You can take two approaches when it comes to installing a release on a Unix box. You can go through the efforts of splitting out the release into its constituent applications, installing those applications separately so that nothing is shared. Then you can come up with a scheme for your release metadata so that they do not collide. After that you can shoehorn all this into whatever package management system exists on your preferred platform. The question I have with this approach is simply why? To retain some idea of the purity of the Unix model? so you can save a few tens or hundreds of megabytes of disk space? With this approach you will be constantly fighting ERTS, coming up with ways to get around the Virtual Machine and what it is natively expecting. In the end, You will be coming up with all sorts of ways to create unanticipated pain for yourself with no real gain.
The alternative is that you treat an Erlang/OTP release as the VM expects. You could use the tools distributed with Erlang to create and handle releases. You could treat a release tarball as a single distributable thing. You could even take this to the logical extreme and, if you are targeting homogeneous hardware even include the ERTS binary in that tarball so that everything is completely self contained. The whole reason ERTS is structured in this manner is due to the problem it was intended to solve: providing a way to make a self contained system that could be installed trivially on target machines.
So taking advantage of this model, You end up with a system (in either /opt or /var) that looks something like this.
That is, you have a separate directory structure to handle Erlang Releases, some where on your system and each release is in its own specific location.
Lets look at an example. Lets say that I have a release
foo. On your
target systems you expect to have versions
0.2.1. You also have the release
bar with versions
0.1.2. Then your tree might look like:
/opt/erts |-- bar | |-- 0.1.1 | | |-- .... | `-- 0.1.2 | | |-- .... `-- foo |-- 0.1.0 | |-- .... |-- 0.2.0 | |-- .... `-- 0.2.1 |-- ....
Where the ellipses identify all the files and directories relating to the release.
Your chef/puppet/management scripts end up being very trivial, simply untaring releases into that version scheme and starting up the self contained releases in those directories, then running the relevant startup commands for ERTS.
This becomes an even more important factor when you start looking at hot code loading and live upgrades with Relups. While I don't recommend that this live upgrading facility for anything but the most trivial projects or those projects where extremely high up-time is worth the monumental costs of getting it right, it still is there and relies on this well understood layout to function.
Unless you have a very good reason not to, I suggest you embrace the Erlang approach. Its simple, straight forward, easy to understand and even easier to manage. It has few downsides and major wins for your infrastructure management and deployment.