-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In alt.os.linux.slackware, Joost Kremers dared to utter,
>> 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?

I'm wondering the same thing. I checked a default install and noticed
the lack of a full path name for the symlink target, but I would have
never guessed that would be the problem. I've got to think that
something was flaky with his symlink or something, because nothing else
makes any sense.

- --
It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise,
Than for a man to hear the song of fools.
Ecclesiastes 7:5
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCVyg9vgVcFKpJf4gRAhjAAJ9+x2IPir0PpVrnnU0cBh pqmBQwFACg4REE
qTwJ9wTThTTWZKZdkm/Z3j0=
=sj+u
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----