> I get "no rule to make target ..lib/libbac.a neede by 'bacula-sd'.
> stop."
Strictly speaking, this is a make problem, not a C problem.
But ... no biggie. Make is fantastic! There's a make in OpenVM.
For my own work, I cobbled up a make in REXX with Pipes (not a
sophisticated make, mind you!). Hard to have 'make' on TSO
because it uses time stamps (which are of mixed reliability on TSO).
But Linux, all Unix, Windows, and CMS all have solid file time stamping.
The syntax is roughly
target: dependency dependency dependencies ...
commands to make the target
commands to make the target
...
If the target does not exist, or if it is older than one of its
dependencies, then the commands are executed (with the hope that
those commands will cause "target" to be [re]created).
And MAKE cascades.
You can have rules for each dependency.
With this error, "no rule to make target ..lib/libbac.a
needed by 'bacula-sd'. stop.", you found a missing rule!
> And then it continues with the next process..
IT COULD BE that this error can be ignored.
Sloppy build logic, but not unusual. It really depends on
WHAT you were making. I'm unfamiliar with bacula.
> That error doesn't sound good. But I can't find anything in the
> "bacula" manual if this is an error I can ignore or not.
The value of 'make' is that it will STOP EVERYTHING
if something fails. There are ways to code around this
if the author wants to effect a build that may have varying output
("can build this, but you lack such-and-such for some sub-part").
> One of the problems I've had with installation of bacula, is that
> I use the default SLES9 install, which apparently doesn't include the
> development system. So there are a lot of items (such as gcc-c++ and
> gcc) that I had to install first. Perhaps I haven't got everything
> yet.
Sounds like it.
Did you run a ./configure for bacula?
The configurator should have detected if something vital was missing,
or should have configured around it, or should have turned off features
(of bacula) which require whatever is/was missing.
The usual recipe is:
# download the source
# expand/unarchive the source
./configure
make
make install
> As a comparision so far, Amanda was easier to use as it came with the
> 390 binaries. Bacula apparently only comes in source form, so I have
> had to build it. It is an interesting exercise and occassionally,
> building systems will pay off in future Linux stuff, but it is taking a
> lot longer than Amanda. But so far, I'm ok with that.
There are advantages to having the source.
But it does mean that you (or someone) will have more to learn.
A common criticism of open source by the OCO crowd (esp Microsoft)
is the work required when things are acquired in source form.
-- R;
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
