Re: inconsistency in the symlinks under /etc/systemd

et -> > > /lib/systemd/system/dm-event.socket > > > > and on another one, I have > > > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 39 2024-01-05 16:54:09 > > /etc/systemd/system/sockets.target.wants/dm-event.socket -> > > /usr/lib/systemd/system/dm-event.socket >

Re: inconsistency in the symlinks under /etc/systemd

perhaps bugs are being fixed > > in package installation support programs. You should be able > > to see the symlinks being created in /var/log/apt/term.log* > > if they haven't yet rotated away. > > On the first machine: > > Setting up dmeventd (2:1.02.185-2) ..

Re: inconsistency in the symlinks under /etc/systemd

t; > > one installation and not the other. > > > > Both machines have always been usr-merged (i.e. from the Debian > > installation). > > This is trixie, is it not, so perhaps bugs are being fixed > in package installation support programs. You should be able > to see the s

Re: inconsistency in the symlinks under /etc/systemd

ays been usr-merged (i.e. from the Debian > installation). This is trixie, is it not, so perhaps bugs are being fixed in package installation support programs. You should be able to see the symlinks being created in /var/log/apt/term.log* if they haven't yet rotated away. Or else, have you

Re: inconsistency in the symlinks under /etc/systemd

On 2024-04-10 09:52:51 -0400, Dan Purgert wrote: > I'd hazard it's a consequence of usrmerge being the "default state" in > one installation and not the other. Both machines have always been usr-merged (i.e. from the Debian installation). -- Vincent Lefèvre - Web: 100%

Re: inconsistency in the symlinks under /etc/systemd

t; > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 39 2024-01-05 16:54:09 > /etc/systemd/system/sockets.target.wants/dm-event.socket -> > /usr/lib/systemd/system/dm-event.socket > > These symlinks were created at Debian installation time, and in > both cases, the dmeventd version is 2:1.02.196-1+b1

Re: inconsistency in the symlinks under /etc/systemd

e > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 39 2024-01-05 16:54:09 > /etc/systemd/system/sockets.target.wants/dm-event.socket -> > /usr/lib/systemd/system/dm-event.socket > > These symlinks were created at Debian installation time, and in > both cases, the dmeventd version is 2:1.02

Re: inconsistency in the symlinks under /etc/systemd

t; lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 39 2024-01-05 16:54:09 > /etc/systemd/system/sockets.target.wants/dm-event.socket -> > /usr/lib/systemd/system/dm-event.socket > > These symlinks were created at Debian installation time, and in > both cases, the dmeventd version is 2:1.02.196-1+

inconsistency in the symlinks under /etc/systemd

/dm-event.socket -> /usr/lib/systemd/system/dm-event.socket These symlinks were created at Debian installation time, and in both cases, the dmeventd version is 2:1.02.196-1+b1. Shouldn't the system ensure that symlinks are consistent on different machines (even though the above symlinks are

Re: dangling symlinks [ was: Re: "locate" easier to use than "find"]

ended post-upgrade step for Fedora. See > <https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/upgrading-fedora-offline/#sect-clean-up-old-symlinks>. > > (I'm not arguing with you. I'm just responding to the title change). Keep those arguments coming :-) No, seriously. We'r

Re: dangling symlinks [ was: Re: "locate" easier to use than "find"]

On Sun, Aug 27, 2023 at 1:10 PM Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote: > > to...@tuxteam.de wrote on 24/08/2023 14:00: > > > > A couple of days ago I was searching for dangling symlinks. > > > >find . -follow -lname "*" > > > How about >

Re: dangling symlinks [ was: Re: "locate" easier to use than "find"]

On Sun, Aug 27, 2023 at 07:09:36PM +0200, Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote: > to...@tuxteam.de wrote on 24/08/2023 14:00: > > > > A couple of days ago I was searching for dangling symlinks. > > > >find . -follow -lname "*" > > > How about >f

dangling symlinks [ was: Re: "locate" easier to use than "find"]

to...@tuxteam.de wrote on 24/08/2023 14:00: A couple of days ago I was searching for dangling symlinks. find . -follow -lname "*" How about find -L . -type l Regards, Jörg.

distcc not installing required symlinks?

I've installed distcc and gcc-aarch64-linux-gnu (and g++-aarch64-linux-gnu), but the symlinks in /usr/lib/distcc are not created. Is there something else I need to do, or is this perhaps a bug? I've seen https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=919704, but it looks like it

Re: What's the purpose of initrd.img{,.old} and vmlinuz{,.old} symlinks in the root dir?

On Sun 01 Mar 2020 at 18:11:07 (+0100), Mikhail Morfikov wrote: > On 01/03/2020 17:15, mick crane wrote: > > On 2020-02-29 18:17, Mikhail Morfikov wrote > > > >> vmlinuz -> boot/vmlinuz-5.4.0-4-amd64 > >> lrwxrwxrwx   1 root   root   24 2020-02-24 00:37:53 > >> vmlinuz.old -> boot/vmli

Re: What's the purpose of initrd.img{,.old} and vmlinuz{,.old} symlinks in the root dir?

Mikhail Morfikov wrote: ... > Also, I'm trying to configure refind EFI boot manager, and basically I do= > n't > want to change its config file with each kernel update (the numbers in th= > e file > names change). that's exactly what i've been doing. they work fine no matter where they end up a

Re: What's the purpose of initrd.img{,.old} and vmlinuz{,.old} symlinks in the root dir?

Brian composed on 2020-03-01 16:10 (UTC): > On Sun 01 Mar 2020 at 08:41:09 -0500, Felix Miata wrote: >> Grub does not like symlinks to un-versioned kernel and initrd in /boot/. > I am probably missing your point but I have just booted successfully > with: > root=&#

Re: What's the purpose of initrd.img{,.old} and vmlinuz{,.old} symlinks in the root dir?

On 01/03/2020 17:15, mick crane wrote: > On 2020-02-29 18:17, Mikhail Morfikov wrote > >> vmlinuz -> boot/vmlinuz-5.4.0-4-amd64 >> lrwxrwxrwx   1 root   root   24 2020-02-24 00:37:53 >> vmlinuz.old -> boot/vmlinuz-5.5.4-amd64 >> > > .old is pointing to a newer kernel ? > > mick > Y

Re: What's the purpose of initrd.img{,.old} and vmlinuz{,.old} symlinks in the root dir?

On 01/03/2020 16:53, David Wright wrote: > I've read here that Grub can decrypt LUKS, but currently only v1, > at least in buster, so no help to you. Actually grub supports LUKSv2[1], but I haven't tried it yet. [1]: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/grub.git/commit/?id=365e0cc3e7e44151c14dd29514

Re: What's the purpose of initrd.img{,.old} and vmlinuz{,.old} symlinks in the root dir?

On 3/1/20, Brian wrote: > On Sun 01 Mar 2020 at 08:41:09 -0500, Felix Miata wrote: > >> >> Grub does not like symlinks to un-versioned kernel and initrd in /boot/. > > I am probably missing your point but I have just booted successfully > with: > > root='hd1,

Re: What's the purpose of initrd.img{,.old} and vmlinuz{,.old} symlinks in the root dir?

On 2020-02-29 18:17, Mikhail Morfikov wrote vmlinuz -> boot/vmlinuz-5.4.0-4-amd64 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 24 2020-02-24 00:37:53 vmlinuz.old -> boot/vmlinuz-5.5.4-amd64 .old is pointing to a newer kernel ? mick -- Key ID4BFEBB31

Re: What's the purpose of initrd.img{,.old} and vmlinuz{,.old} symlinks in the root dir?

t;>> So I have a question here: what's the purpose of the links? > > >> They're a convenience. If you want them kept in /boot, then edit > >> /etc/kernel-img.conf and linux-update-symlinks will recreate them > >> there when the kernel is updated.

Re: What's the purpose of initrd.img{,.old} and vmlinuz{,.old} symlinks in the root dir?

On Sun 01 Mar 2020 at 15:09:34 (+0100), Mikhail Morfikov wrote: > On 01/03/2020 02:15, David Wright wrote: > > They're a convenience. If you want them kept in /boot, then edit > > /etc/kernel-img.conf and linux-update-symlinks will recreate them > > there when the kerne

Re: What's the purpose of initrd.img{,.old} and vmlinuz{,.old} symlinks in the root dir?

On 01/03/2020 02:15, David Wright wrote: > They're a convenience. If you want them kept in /boot, then edit > /etc/kernel-img.conf and linux-update-symlinks will recreate them > there when the kernel is updated. Ditto if you want them removed. I didn't know there's even

Re: What's the purpose of initrd.img{,.old} and vmlinuz{,.old} symlinks in the root dir?

>>> boot/vmlinuz-5.4.0-4-amd64 >>> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 24 2020-02-24 00:37:53 vmlinuz.old -> >>> boot/vmlinuz-5.5.4-amd64 >>> So I have a question here: what's the purpose of the links? >> They're a convenience. If you want them kept in

Re: What's the purpose of initrd.img{,.old} and vmlinuz{,.old} symlinks in the root dir?

On Sat 29 Feb 2020 at 19:15:12 -0600, David Wright wrote: > On Sat 29 Feb 2020 at 19:17:39 (+0100), Mikhail Morfikov wrote: > > I have an encrypted (LUKSv2) LVM setup with a separate unencrypted /boot/ > > partition. When I install a new kenrel in the system, the following &

Re: What's the purpose of initrd.img{,.old} and vmlinuz{,.old} symlinks in the root dir?

On Sat 29 Feb 2020 at 19:17:39 (+0100), Mikhail Morfikov wrote: > I have an encrypted (LUKSv2) LVM setup with a separate unencrypted /boot/ > partition. When I install a new kenrel in the system, the following symlinks > are > created in the root directory (/): > &

What's the purpose of initrd.img{,.old} and vmlinuz{,.old} symlinks in the root dir?

I have an encrypted (LUKSv2) LVM setup with a separate unencrypted /boot/ partition. When I install a new kenrel in the system, the following symlinks are created in the root directory (/): # ls -al / ... lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 29 2020-02-14 17:22:18

Re: kernel symlinks, still needed?

Andrea Borgia wrote: > Hi. > > AFAIK the following symlinks in "/" were required for LILO and are no > longer needed with GRUB2: > initrd.img > initrd.img.old > vmlinuz > vmlinuz.old > > Is there a reason for keeping them around nowadays? i use refind t

Re: kernel symlinks, still needed?

On Sun 26 May 2019 at 14:57:57 +0200, Andrea Borgia wrote: > Il 26/05/19 00:19, Brian ha scritto: > > > Booting from a GRUB prompt can be a little easier when you know that > > the kernel and initrd can be reached from /. > > In those cases where the system doesn't boot on its own, I dig out the

Re: kernel symlinks, still needed?

Il 26/05/19 00:19, Brian ha scritto: Booting from a GRUB prompt can be a little easier when you know that the kernel and initrd can be reached from /. In those cases where the system doesn't boot on its own, I dig out the USB drive where I keep the ISOs and run from there. It's rare enough

Re: kernel symlinks, still needed?

Il 25/05/19 19:24, Sven Joachim ha scritto: If you stick to grub, not really. You can safely delete them, and use do_symlinks = 0 in /etc/kernel-img.conf so that they will not come back. Thanks, I've just done as you suggested :)

Re: kernel symlinks, still needed?

On Sat 25 May 2019 at 18:16:17 +0200, Andrea Borgia wrote: > Hi. > > AFAIK the following symlinks in "/" were required for LILO and are no longer > needed with GRUB2: > initrd.img > initrd.img.old > vmlinuz > vmlinuz.old > > Is there a reason for keepi

Re: kernel symlinks, still needed?

On 2019-05-25 18:16 +0200, Andrea Borgia wrote: > AFAIK the following symlinks in "/" were required for LILO and are no > longer needed with GRUB2: > initrd.img > initrd.img.old > vmlinuz > vmlinuz.old > > Is there a reason for keeping them around nowadays? If y

kernel symlinks, still needed?

Hi. AFAIK the following symlinks in "/" were required for LILO and are no longer needed with GRUB2: initrd.img initrd.img.old vmlinuz vmlinuz.old Is there a reason for keeping them around nowadays? Thanks, Andrea.

Re: Symlinks vs. hardlinks [was: Prevent shutdown with systemctl]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 09:19:57AM -0600, David Wright wrote: > On Tue 05 Jan 2016 at 09:04:19 (+0100), to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 04:43:05PM -0500, Gary Dale wrote: > > > If that is a problem with s

Re: Symlinks vs. hardlinks [was: Prevent shutdown with systemctl]

On Tue 05 Jan 2016 at 09:04:19 (+0100), to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 04:43:05PM -0500, Gary Dale wrote: > > If that is a problem with symlinks, shouldn't it also be with > > hardlinks? > > No, because of above: > > - symlink: per

Re: Symlinks vs. hardlinks

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 11:08:11AM +0100, Thomas Schmitt wrote: > Hi, > > to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > > tomas@rasputin:~$ ln /home/test/.profile test-profile > > > > ln: failed to create hard link `test-profile' => > > > > `/home/test/.profile':

Re: Symlinks vs. hardlinks

Hi, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > tomas@rasputin:~$ ln /home/test/.profile test-profile > > > ln: failed to create hard link `test-profile' => > > > `/home/test/.profile': Operation not permitted Seems to be a new security feature. In "man 5 proc" i read "/proc/sys/fs/protected_hardlinks (

Symlinks vs. hardlinks [was: Prevent shutdown with systemctl]

t; >Thus, the permissions of the referenced-to file apply. Otherwise -- > >imagine: I do an ln -s /bin/bash $HOME, chmod u+w $HOME/bas > >(since I own the link) and now have write access to the system shell?! > > > >Hard links are a completely different kind of ani

Re: systemctl disable does not remove /etc/rc?.d symlinks

On Sb, 22 nov 14, 17:53:09, Jean-Marc wrote: > hi everybody, > > I disabled NFS yesterday using a . > > The output I got was OK, displaying the whole bunch of messages saying it > updated symlinks using . > > But today, it restarted. And it is normal: the symlinks ar

systemctl disable does not remove /etc/rc?.d symlinks

hi everybody, I disabled NFS yesterday using a . The output I got was OK, displaying the whole bunch of messages saying it updated symlinks using . But today, it restarted. And it is normal: the symlinks are still there. I re-did again verifying the symlinks and they stay unchanged

bacula-director-mysql: missing runlevels symlinks

Hi all! Yesterday I had to restart a host with Wheezy which I have installed Bacula. After booting, I saw that the process bacula-dir had not started. I tried to start it manually and I had no problem with that. Researching the problem, I found that the symbolic links in different runleves had n

Re: LVM devices and symlinks

Roger Leigh wrote: > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 09:29:23PM -0500, Neil T. Dantam wrote: >> At Tue, 11 Dec 2012 10:15:54 +, >> Chris Davies wrote: >> > >> > Reboot the box after installing LVM. >> >> Ah, a reboot has lvcreate working properly, thank you. > This is good to know. However, this s

Re: LVM devices and symlinks

Roger Leigh wrote: > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 09:29:23PM -0500, Neil T. Dantam wrote: >> At Tue, 11 Dec 2012 10:15:54 +, >> Chris Davies wrote: >> > >> > Reboot the box after installing LVM. >> >> Ah, a reboot has lvcreate working properly, thank you. > This is good to know. However, this s

Re: LVM devices and symlinks

could you file a serious bug against the lvm package so that > this can be fixed. I can go ahead and file the report, but at the moment, I don't have any more detail than /sometimes/ lvcreate doesn't make the right files/symlinks. -ntd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-req

Re: LVM devices and symlinks

could you file a serious bug against the lvm package so that > this can be fixed. I can go ahead and file the report, but at the moment, I don't have any more detail than /sometimes/ lvcreate doesn't make the right files/symlinks. -ntd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-req

Re: LVM devices and symlinks

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 09:29:23PM -0500, Neil T. Dantam wrote: > At Tue, 11 Dec 2012 10:15:54 +, > Chris Davies wrote: > > > > Reboot the box after installing LVM. > > Ah, a reboot has lvcreate working properly, thank you. This is good to know. However, this should all be triggered when th

Re: LVM devices and symlinks

as related to my weird > installation process - that blocks the symlink creation after installing > LVM but prior to a reboot. > > > Also, on a reboot of the machine, the device files end up in the > > original configuration, with both /dev/mapper/VGNAME-LVNAME and > > /de

Re: LVM devices and symlinks

allation process - that blocks the symlink creation after installing LVM but prior to a reboot. > Also, on a reboot of the machine, the device files end up in the > original configuration, with both /dev/mapper/VGNAME-LVNAME and > /dev/VGNAME/LVNAME as symlinks pointing to /dev/dm-N. Is h

Re: LVM devices and symlinks

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:09:50PM -0700, Bob Proulx wrote: > Neil T. Dantam wrote: > > I'm having an issue (not quite a problem) creating LVM logical > > volumes. It seems that the way device files and symlinks are created > > has changed between Squeeze and

Re: LVM devices and symlinks

Neil T. Dantam wrote: > I'm having an issue (not quite a problem) creating LVM logical > volumes. It seems that the way device files and symlinks are created > has changed between Squeeze and Wheezy (or I have some bad > configuration). As far as I can tell these features

LVM devices and symlinks

Hi, I'm having an issue (not quite a problem) creating LVM logical volumes. It seems that the way device files and symlinks are created has changed between Squeeze and Wheezy (or I have some bad configuration). Old (working) Behavior -- Performing an `lvcreate

Re: tar --remove-files chokes on symlinks

> but during the tar process I get the errors: >> >> tar: /RAID/System/Backup/bin: Cannot rmdir: Directory not empty >> tar: Exiting with failure status due to previous errors >> >> When I look in /RAID/System/Backup/bin, all that is left are a number >> of >

Re: tar --remove-files chokes on symlinks

/RAID/System/Backup/bin: Cannot rmdir: Directory not empty > tar: Exiting with failure status due to previous errors > > When I look in /RAID/System/Backup/bin, all that is left are a number of > symlinks. Evidently, tar is unable to delete the symlinks prior to > attempting the dire

tar --remove-files chokes on symlinks

failure status due to previous errors When I look in /RAID/System/Backup/bin, all that is left are a number of symlinks. Evidently, tar is unable to delete the symlinks prior to attempting the directory delete. If it makes a difference, these symlinks actually point to nothing. In any case, how

Re: Can't Create SymLinks on CF Card

ot; and "operation > not permitted." Is your drive read-only? > > I bypassed tar and tried creating some of the symlinks by hand and got the > same error. The CF card is mounted in /mnt/flash. I umounted the drive, > cd'ed back to /mnt/flash and ran the very same tar

Re: Can't Create SymLinks on CF Card

r the archive, I keep getting "cannot create symlink" >> and "operation not permitted." > > Looks like the card is formatted with an unsuitable filesystem > (e.g. FAT32). > >> Does anyone have any idea why I can create and save files on this CF card >&g

Re: Can't Create SymLinks on CF Card

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. [I didn't mention many the kFreeBSD file systems, but that's just because > I'm > not familiar with running on kFreeBSD.] Debian/kFreeBSD uses UFS2 (Universal File System version 2) which also fully supports posix sy

Re: Can't Create SymLinks on CF Card

ot; and "operation > not permitted." > > I've tried this with another CF card and it works fine. I've even tried it > in another mount point and it works. The only time it does NOT work is > with this particular CF card. I can unpack files to it and they are th

Re: Can't Create SymLinks on CF Card

nd "operation not permitted." Looks like the card is formatted with an unsuitable filesystem (e.g. FAT32). > Does anyone have any idea why I can create and save files on this CF card and > cannot make symlinks on it? Most probably because the filesystem on the card does not support sym

Can't Create SymLinks on CF Card

I found this when using tar to unpack an OS image archive. I've been doing this for a while on another CF card and had no problem. But now, when I untar the archive, I keep getting "cannot create symlink" and "operation not permitted." I bypassed tar and tried crea

Re: Symlinks (was Re: Triple boot with MS XP)

On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 10:50 PM, Ron Johnson wrote: > On 06/16/2010 10:03 PM, ABSDoug wrote: >> >> --- On Wed, 6/16/10, Ron Johnson wrote: >> >>  > Symlink the NTFS iTunes directory to some place under >>  > $HOME. >> >> I've never heard this term "Symlink". I'm off to Google, but if you care >>

Symlinks (was Re: Triple boot with MS XP)

On 06/16/2010 10:03 PM, ABSDoug wrote: --- On Wed, 6/16/10, Ron Johnson wrote: > Symlink the NTFS iTunes directory to some place under > $HOME. I've never heard this term "Symlink". I'm off to Google, but if you care to elaborate, please feel free! (That's the way for a newbie to engender

[OT] Epiphany follows symlinks, Iceweasel not

Hello, all: I have a bunch of XHTML files with potential links to each other.[1] A top index file links to the principal files. Each file then has potential links to others, which is determined by a bit of JavaScript which finds potential links and makes them into links if the linked file is pres

Re: Save/Restore Symlinks

uot;/home/crhode/.mozilla/firefox/Profile0.default/Cache" There were no errors. Symlinks look good in the destination directory. Thanks! -- ... Chuck Rhode, Sheboygan, WI, USA ... Weather: http://LacusVeris.com/WX ... 68° — Wind WSW 6 mph — Sky mostly clear. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email

Re: Save/Restore Symlinks

On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 08:03:23AM -0500, Chuck Rhode wrote: > On Fri, 30 May 2008 07:00:17 +0200, Todd A. Jacobs wrote: > > > On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 11:50:04PM -0500, Chuck Rhode wrote: > > >> Alright, I want to back-up my *home* directory, but it has symlinks to >

Re: Save/Restore Symlinks

On Fri, 30 May 2008 07:00:17 +0200, Todd A. Jacobs wrote: > On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 11:50:04PM -0500, Chuck Rhode wrote: >> Alright, I want to back-up my *home* directory, but it has symlinks to >> other directories. How do I get these back after a restore? > Rsync has

Re: Save/Restore Symlinks

On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 11:50:04PM -0500, Chuck Rhode wrote: > Alright, I want to back-up my *home* directory, but it has symlinks to > other directories. How do I get these back after a restore? I'm not even sure I understand the question. If you back up a symlink, and then restore

Save/Restore Symlinks

Alright, I want to back-up my *home* directory, but it has symlinks to other directories. How do I get these back after a restore? I gather that *tar* saves link info, but *rsync*, using standard file-system calls to create links in the backup directory, cannot, when the destination is on

Re: bad symlinks

--- "Douglas A. Tutty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 07:24:10AM -0800, Angus Auld > wrote: > > --- "Douglas A. Tutty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 12:23:40AM -0800, Angus > Auld > &

Re: bad symlinks

On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 07:24:10AM -0800, Angus Auld wrote: > --- "Douglas A. Tutty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 12:23:40AM -0800, Angus Auld > > wrote: > > > Is it safe to delete any "bad symlinks" that I > > fin

Re: bad symlinks

--- "Douglas A. Tutty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 12:23:40AM -0800, Angus Auld > wrote: > > Is it safe to delete any "bad symlinks" that I > find on >^^^ > > my Debian Etch system? > &g

Re: bad symlinks

On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 12:23:40AM -0800, Angus Auld wrote: > Is it safe to delete any "bad symlinks" that I find on ^^^ > my Debian Etch system? > I used FSlint to search, and found several. I wouldn't give a blanket guarantee. If there are no bu

Re: bad symlinks

On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 12:23:40AM -0800, Angus Auld wrote: > Is it safe to delete any "bad symlinks" that I find on > my Debian Etch system? > I used FSlint to search, and found several. > I have used symlinks (Debian package) without a problem to clean up my system in the

bad symlinks

Is it safe to delete any "bad symlinks" that I find on my Debian Etch system? I used FSlint to search, and found several. TIA for any feedback. Best regards. -- Angus "All churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Muslim, appear to me no other than human inventions, setup

Re: etch 2.6 kernel and modutils broken symlinks

On Jan 01, Declan Mullen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've noticed that my system has some files that belong to the "modutils" > package (which is used with 2.2 and 2.4 kernels), however I don't have > that package installed. The files are "/sbin/ksyms" and > "/bin/kallsyms", both of which are sym

etch 2.6 kernel and modutils broken symlinks

Hi All My system is running "etch" with the latest updates and a 2.6 kernel. It has never installed or run a 2.4 or 2.2 kernel. I've noticed that my system has some files that belong to the "modutils" package (which is used with 2.2 and 2.4 kernels), however I don't have that package installed. T

Re: /dev/cdrom & /dev/dvd symlinks and udev

cko > Many thanks for the tip, and I will go and look there. I will admit that I was a bit nervous about poking around too much in the present files as so many howtos and so on made a big deal about making your own. Strange thing is that I finally got so fed up with this that just decided to

Re: /dev/cdrom & /dev/dvd symlinks and udev

cothrige wrote: I have two dvd drives, hdc is a standard drive and hdd is a cd/dvd writer. The problem is that all the cdrom symlinks always point at /dev/hdd which is not my primary drive. I like cdrw and dvdrw as they are, but would like to have cdrom and dvd to point correctly to hdc. In

/dev/cdrom & /dev/dvd symlinks and udev

I have two dvd drives, hdc is a standard drive and hdd is a cd/dvd writer. The problem is that all the cdrom symlinks always point at /dev/hdd which is not my primary drive. I like cdrw and dvdrw as they are, but would like to have cdrom and dvd to point correctly to hdc. In trying to do this

Re: OT: symlinks question

On 2007-05-31 21:01:44 +0200, Jan Willem Stumpel wrote: > Is there a single command to change the target of a symlink? > > Say I have a link which points from mylink to A, made by > > ln -s A mylink > > and I want to make the link point to B instead. I can of course do > > rm mylink > ln

Re: OT: symlinks question

Andrew J. Barr wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Thu, 31 May 2007 21:01:44 +0200 > Jan Willem Stumpel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Is there a single command to change the target of a symlink? > > Try using the -f switch on ln. Thanks! I had seen the -f switch in

Re: OT: symlinks question

ourse do > > rm mylink > ln -s B mylink > > but is't there a simpler way to do it? I would be amazed if there > weren't any (this operation occurs quite often), but I could not > find any clues in man ln. > Midnight commander lets you edit symlinks. However, I d

Re: OT: symlinks question

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 31 May 2007 21:01:44 +0200 Jan Willem Stumpel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is there a single command to change the target of a symlink? Try using the -f switch on ln. - -- Andrew J. Barr X-Mailer: Claws Mail 2.9.1 (GTK+ 2.10.12; powerpc-unk

OT: symlinks question

Is there a single command to change the target of a symlink? Say I have a link which points from mylink to A, made by ln -s A mylink and I want to make the link point to B instead. I can of course do rm mylink ln -s B mylink but is't there a simpler way to do it? I would be amazed if the

Re: OT: symlinks question

On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 09:01:44PM +0200, Jan Willem Stumpel wrote: > Is there a single command to change the target of a symlink? > > Say I have a link which points from mylink to A, made by > > ln -s A mylink > > and I want to make the link point to B instead. I can of course do > > rm my

rsync and symlinks

Hi, While backing up my data to an external hard drive, I get a strange error: tyler:tylers_laptop-> rsync -a ~/analysis/ ./thesis19Apr07/analysis/ rsync: symlink "/mnt/jumpdrive/tylers_laptop/thesis19Apr07/analysis/ aflp/.#.AFLPScripts-preOct06.R" -> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]:1174748709" failed: Operat

Re: udev doesn't create the /dev/cdrom symlinks

Chris Bannister wrote: > On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 10:15:01AM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote: >> I looked at the rules files in /etc/udev/rules.d but couldn't quite >> understand how/when the z25-persistent-cd.rules (which is properly filled on >> my desktop but not on my Thinkpad) is supposed to be bui

Re: udev doesn't create the /dev/cdrom symlinks

On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 10:15:01AM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote: > I looked at the rules files in /etc/udev/rules.d but couldn't quite > understand how/when the z25-persistent-cd.rules (which is properly filled on > my desktop but not on my Thinkpad) is supposed to be built. Does manually editing t

udev doesn't create the /dev/cdrom symlinks

My old trusty Thinkpad X30 has a problem: the CDRW/DVDR device that's plugged into the ultrabay only appears as /dev/hdb (or even /dev/hdc sometimes), but not as /dev/cdrom. I've been using Debian testing on it for 3 years now with much joy. I don't often use the CD device, but I do remember it

Re: How do I rebuild alternative symlinks?

,0,2)) { symlink($l,$r); print "$l $r\n"; }' Now I have all my symlinks back... but I have a few questions still: 1) is there a way to do this with just dpkg? 2) if not, should there be? (update-alternatives --reinstall-all?) 3) is it a bug or "feature" that keeps

How do I rebuild alternative symlinks?

I just moved a debian installation from one system to another by mirroring /opt, etc, /home, /var, and /usr/local -- and then using dpkg --set-selections to get all the same packages installed on the new box. Everything's gone great except for the alternatives system. For some reason, none of the

Re: find dangling symlinks

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Johannes Zellner wrote: > Hello, > > how do I find dangling symlinks? Visually, or all of them in a tree? - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Is "common sense" really valid? For example, it is "common sense" to wh

Re: find dangling symlinks

try cleanlinksOn 6/20/06, Michael Marsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 6/20/06, Johannes Zellner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> how do I find dangling symlinks?$ find -L -type lshould do it.  "-L" tells find to follow symlinks, and "-type l" (that's a lowercas

Re: find dangling symlinks

On 6/20/06, Johannes Zellner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: how do I find dangling symlinks? $ find -L -type l should do it. "-L" tells find to follow symlinks, and "-type l" (that's a lowercase ell) matches symlinks. Since the only symlinks that wil

Re: find dangling symlinks

On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 22:16 +0200, Johannes Zellner wrote: > Hello, > > how do I find dangling symlinks? Perhaps the package called "symlinks" would help. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

find dangling symlinks

Hello, how do I find dangling symlinks? -- Johannes -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: creating symlinks in /proc

On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 02:33:33PM +0100, Jörg Schütter wrote: > Hi > > Is there a way to create symlinks in /proc? > I'm renaming my network interfaces w/ udev rules, so the name of > my wireless-card becomes eth_wlan. Kismet tries to find a file in > /proc/drivers/air

creating symlinks in /proc

Hi Is there a way to create symlinks in /proc? I'm renaming my network interfaces w/ udev rules, so the name of my wireless-card becomes eth_wlan. Kismet tries to find a file in /proc/drivers/aironet/eth_wlan, but this directory does not exist but /proc/drivers/aironet/eth0 does exist. I a

  1   2   3   >