Then there is reputed to be floating around the Internet a slash-n-burn version of JCL, still very much in alpha.
You could get ahold of that and turn it into a "real" JCL, tying it in with some of the utilities mentioned in the earlier replies, and just forget about the "Linuxisms" side of things. Just a thought ... <;-\ Wesley Parish On Friday 21 March 2003 02:12 am, you wrote: > The 'standard' way is to build a makefile for the compiles, and run > make. > > Another suggestion, and I'm new at this, is to code a quicky Rexx > (Regina) script. You should be able to do the compiles, check return > codes, and e-mail yourself the results. At least this is the kind of > thing I do on VM when I want to run a batch of compiles. With Linux you > should be able to run it in the background (if the script is 'compile' > use the command 'compile&') > > "McKown, John" wrote: > > OK, so I have a corrupted mindset, coming from MVS <grin>. But suppose > > that I want to compile a LOT of programs. In MVS, I code up some JCL and > > submit it to run later. When it completes, I get a notify to my TSO id > > and look at the output in SDSF. I repeat this for however many compiles > > that I want to do. Perhaps doing the submissions over a period of time. > > How do I do that in Linux (or any UNIX)? In VM/CMS, I remember a CMSBATCH > > virtual machine which worked a bit like the MVS initiator. The best that > > I can think of to do in Linux is: > > > > nohup compiler and switches 1>stdout.unique.qualifer > > 2>stderr.unique.qualifer & > > > > This would run my compile "in the background" so to speak (or at least > > not tie up my terminal). I could do this any number of times. But this > > would have all the compiles running at the same time. So now I'm > > impacting performance for others (even if I "nice" the compiles). Now I > > have 50 programmers all doing the same. My machine is a mess. Is there an > > equivalent to an initiator where people can "submit" work to be done > > (compiles, shell scripts, whatever) and the system will schedule it and > > the sysadmin can control it (I.e. only do 5 at a time, let the others > > wait) > > > > Or am I worrying about nothing since Linux developers don't do thing this > > way anyway. I.e. queuing up 20 compiles while going to lunch and surfing > > the web and generally schmoozing around? The same question about testing > > programs. Perhaps there just isn't any "batch" type processing? > > > > -- > > John McKown -- Mau e ki, "He aha te mea nui?" You ask, "What is the most important thing?" Maku e ki, "He tangata, he tangata, he tangata." I reply, "It is people, it is people, it is people."
