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.

Joost Kremers blithely blithered
> 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?

Everything seems to be functioning as expected. Hydrogen is creating
beats, gimp is makin pretty pictures, and Firefox is Firefoxing. Life is
good with the machine back to normal so I think I'll forget about it for
now and get drunk.

Only 5 more hours until after work!

> oh, and another thing: how on earth did you figure this one out? or was it
> just a lucky guess?

A bit of both.

--
bug, n:
A son of a glitch.

-----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-----

+Alan Hicks+ <alan@lizella.network> trolled:
> -----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.

One thing does make sense, however. Why don't you fuck off, Hicks?

Just fuck off.

cordially, as always,

rm
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account