HPCC-12157 Correct rpm package version and release

Package Name: hpcc-platorm
Version: <major>.<minor>.<point>
Release: <build maturity and sequence>
Group  : development/system
Summary: hpccsystems-platform-community-with-plugins

Some implementation details:
1) The new rpm package entry (rpm -qa | grep hpcc) will be : 
         hpccsystems-platform-<major>.<minor>.<point>-<sequence>
     For example: hpccsystems-platform-5.2.0-rc1
     This is updateble over any hpcc platform previous rpm package format, 
     for example hpccsystems-platform-internal-6.0.0-1
     You can run rpmdev-vercmp (from rpmdevtools package) to verify:
     rpmdev-varcmp hpccsystems-platform-5.2.0-rc1  hpccsystems-platform-internal-6.0.0-1
     Result: hpccsystems-platform-5.2.0-rc1 is newer

2) rpm package entry (rpm -qa | grep hpcc) 
    "hpccsystems-platform-<major>.<minor>.<point>-<sequence>" doesn't tell the it is
    community, enterprise and internal as well as w/o plugins.
    User can run rpm -q --info hpccsystems-platform-<major>.<minor>.<point>-<sequence> to
    find the information in "Summary" field.
    For example, "Summary     : hpccsystems-platform-internal-with-plugins"

    Deb package show summary directory with "dpkg -l":
    ubuntu@ub-14:~/Downloads$ dpkg -l | grep hpcc
    ii  hpccsystems-platform   5.2.0-closedown0   amd64  hpccsystems-platform-internal

3) Platform rpm group field is set to "development/system".
    The other related standard options are "development/libraries" (hadoop) and "application/system"
    Clienttools rpm group field is set to "development/libraries"
    Reference http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RPMGroups for more standard options

    Deb package has a similar field called "Section". By default it is "devel".  Since there is no other 
    appropriate values we keep this default for now.
    Reference: https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-subsections

For sample output see https://track.hpccsystems.com/browse/HPCC-12157

@richardkchapman @kunalaswani @Michael-Gardner please help to review.