William Hunt blithely blithered
> On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 16:56:49 +0000, Joost Kremers wrote:
>> Handover Phist wrote:
>>> Very strange one indeed, this one! And tracked down to the symlink
>>> between /bin/sh and /bin/bash. I replaced it with sh -> bash as opposed
>>> to sh -> /bin/bash
>>>
>>> ln -s bash sh
>>
>> this makes me ask myself two things: what would have happened if you had
>> recreated the symlink as it was, i.e., `ln -s /bin/bash sh'? and how
>> are your other symlinks functioning?
>
> hmmm. my fresh 10.1 install has /bin/sh -> bash
> So i wonder, also. how it got to be /bin/sh -> /bin/bash
> in the first place.
>
> big weirdness.
>
>
>> oh, and another thing: how on earth did you figure this one out? or was it
>> just a lucky guess?
>
> yeah give that man one shiny silver Bozo point emblazoned
> with a gold Clue.

The scripts rc.? weren't firing. It boiled down to #!/bin/sh being
wonky. I couldn't think of anything else so there you have it, call it a
lucky guess at the end of a long think.

I had the 10.1 CDs at the ready for this weekend too, looks like I still
get to wait for 2.6.* to be mainstream Slack before I upgrade .

--
The REVERSE function works on the opposite SEXPR.