Worst than that, it didn't tell me to see config.log and it didn't really say it didn't finish normally.
I would have been happier to see a: The following errors were reported: . . . Please correct before continuing. But I just had to guess. When I get back to this, I plan on going to the manual and seeing what prereqs were needed and verify that they are installed using Yast. Then, things should be better. Tom Duerbusch THD Consulting >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/15/05 4:20 PM >>> In this sequence, 'configure' will often produce a log file. I have recently found a number of packages that failed to config where I got a message, "see config.log" to figure out what went wrong. I'd complain a lot less about that than about your bacula experience. (Or did bacula config tell you to read the log?) Mark Post will tell you, rightly, to use RPM or some other package mangler for to get a proper audit trail. Works even for source packages in many cases. The value is more significant for big shops where someone else will have to pick up the pieces after you've left. My beef with RPM is two-fold: 1) it fails on a number of points of robustness (so does SES/E or SMP/E or SAM, InstallShield behaves better than these! I might contend that SMIT is better still), and 2) it is less ubiquitous and less flexible than the above "recipe". -- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
