On Tue, 7 May 2002, Ken Williams wrote: > On Tuesday, May 7, 2002, at 12:52 AM, Chris Devers wrote: > > > Really, now that I think about it, is it at all necessary to symlink > > files from /usr/bin to /sw/bin? It's a safe assumption that almost > > everyone has /usr/bin in their path, so duplicating the pointer in > > /sw shouldn't be necessary for anyone, should it? If the versions in > > /sw are corrupted, then so be it -- just delete them. I don't think > > you need to go the extra step & symlink them to restore functionality. > > The main reason to symlink them would probably be that the > fileutils package expects them to be there, so you keep a higher > degree of consistency by making sure something's there. Of > course, it's still not an intact installation if they're > manually-created symlinks, but it's close.
Right, but if the system versions don't support the same interface switches that the fileutils ones do, then maybe you're better off if you don't try to mask over the damage like that. I mean, this hack still doesn't address the underlying problem, if in fact there is an underlying problem as I suspect. It addresses the symptom of missing/corrupted files, but doesn't help to explain what's messing up those files in the first place. I'm still a little worried that people keep sending in reports like the ones that started off this thread... -- Chris Devers [EMAIL PROTECTED] Apache / mod_perl / http://homepage.mac.com/chdevers/resume/ "More war soon. You know how it is." -- mnftiu.cc _______________________________________________________________ Have big pipes? SourceForge.net is looking for download mirrors. We supply the hardware. You get the recognition. Email Us: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Fink-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-users
