Prev: Statistics for alt.os.linux.mandriva
Next: Mandrake 10.x - WYSIWYG Html editor?
From: Markus R. Keßler on 10 Apr 2010 11:20
Hi there,

just had to realise that ln in Mandrake 10.1 is obviously buggy:

$ pwd
/etc
$ ll | grep shorewall
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 28 Apr 10 17:13 shorewall -> /etc/shorewall.allclosedtun0/
drwx------ 2 root root 4,0K Apr 10 15:39 shorewall.allclosedeth0/
drwx------ 2 root root 4,0K Apr 10 17:12 shorewall.allclosedtun0/
drwx------ 2 root root 4,0K Apr 10 17:03 shorewall.allopen/
$ ln -f -s /etc/shorewall.allopen /etc/shorewall
$ ll | grep shorewall
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 28 Apr 10 17:13 shorewall -> /etc/shorewall.allclosedtun0/
drwx------ 2 root root 4,0K Apr 10 15:39 shorewall.allclosedeth0/
drwx------ 2 root root 4,0K Apr 10 17:14 shorewall.allclosedtun0/
drwx------ 2 root root 4,0K Apr 10 17:03 shorewall.allopen/
$ rm /etc/shorewall
$ ln -f -s /etc/shorewall.allopen /etc/shorewall
$ ll | grep shorewall
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 22 Apr 10 17:15 shorewall -> /etc/shorewall.allopen/
drwx------ 2 root root 4,0K Apr 10 15:39 shorewall.allclosedeth0/
drwx------ 2 root root 4,0K Apr 10 17:14 shorewall.allclosedtun0/
drwx------ 2 root root 4,0K Apr 10 17:03 shorewall.allopen/

This means in other words, that the ln command refuses to automatically
remove / overwrite existing symlinks when called with parameter '-f' or
'--force'.

Is this a wellknown bug?

Best regards,

Markus

--
Please reply to group only.
For private email please use http://www.dipl-ing-kessler.de/email.htm

From: E on 10 Apr 2010 11:52
Markus R. Ke�ler wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> just had to realise that ln in Mandrake 10.1 is obviously buggy:

Would that be the Mandrake 10.1 from the year 2004 ?

> This means in other words, that the ln command refuses to automatically
> remove / overwrite existing symlinks when called with parameter '-f' or
> '--force'.

It works on Mandriva 2010.0.

$ touch a b

$ ln -s a c
$ readlink c
a

$ ln -fs b c
$ readlink c
b

> Is this a wellknown bug?

Nobody cares about ln(1) from the year 2004.

Check your calendar.
From: Markus R. Keßler on 10 Apr 2010 12:56
Am Sun, 11 Apr 2010 01:52:58 +1000 schrieb E:

> Markus R. Ke�ler wrote:
>> Hi there,
>>
>> just had to realise that ln in Mandrake 10.1 is obviously buggy:
>
> Would that be the Mandrake 10.1 from the year 2004 ?

Right!

And... Mandrake 10.x was one of the best distributions MandrAKE ever
made. I'm glad to have it on several machines, still.

>> This means in other words, that the ln command refuses to automatically
>> remove / overwrite existing symlinks when called with parameter '-f' or
>> '--force'.
>
> It works on Mandriva 2010.0.

Same with Mandriva 2009.x. That means, that this bug had been fixed
meanwhile.

> Nobody cares about ln(1) from the year 2004.

I do.

> Check your calendar.

Ntpd buggy? - Maybe.

....Perhaps, someday you'll change your mind.
For instance, one of my BMWs is from 1987(!) is still running fine. So,
why should I give it away?

Best regards,

Markus

--
Please reply to group only.
For private email please use http://www.dipl-ing-kessler.de/email.htm

From: unruh on 10 Apr 2010 13:19
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.os.linux.mandrake.]
On 2010-04-10, Markus R Ke?ler <dimke.fax(a)uni.de> wrote:
> Am Sun, 11 Apr 2010 01:52:58 +1000 schrieb E:
>
>> Markus R. Ke?ler wrote:
>>> Hi there,
>>>
>>> just had to realise that ln in Mandrake 10.1 is obviously buggy:
>>
>> Would that be the Mandrake 10.1 from the year 2004 ?
>
> Right!
>
> And... Mandrake 10.x was one of the best distributions MandrAKE ever
> made. I'm glad to have it on several machines, still.
>
>>> This means in other words, that the ln command refuses to automatically
>>> remove / overwrite existing symlinks when called with parameter '-f' or
>>> '--force'.
>>
>> It works on Mandriva 2010.0.
>
> Same with Mandriva 2009.x. That means, that this bug had been fixed
> meanwhile.
>
>> Nobody cares about ln(1) from the year 2004.
>
> I do.
>
>> Check your calendar.
>
> Ntpd buggy? - Maybe.
>
> ...Perhaps, someday you'll change your mind.
> For instance, one of my BMWs is from 1987(!) is still running fine. So,
> why should I give it away?
>

If your bmw was designed so that wheels fell off if you drove it over a
bumpy road, and all that was out there now was bumpy roads, I think you
would have replaced it. OS operate in a very different and changing
environment from cars. Security problems appear, people out there learn
how to take advantage of them, which they may not have done in 2004.
Ie, While many features of 10.1 may be fine now, some are a disaster
waiting to happen, and you certainly do not have the ability to fix
them.

For example, since ln source code is available, your 2004 version can be
replaced by a 2010 version.
From: David W. Hodgins on 10 Apr 2010 13:42
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 11:20:03 -0400, Markus R. Keßler <dimke.fax(a)uni.de> wrote:

> This means in other words, that the ln command refuses to automatically
> remove / overwrite existing symlinks when called with parameter '-f' or
> '--force'.

> Is this a wellknown bug?

It's still true in 2010.0.

The -f option will only remove existing files, not existing
directories, or symlinks to them.

The deletion of existing objects is very conservative in
what it will try, probably intentionally.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

--
Change nomail.afraid.org to ody.ca to reply by email.
(nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for
use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Statistics for alt.os.linux.mandriva
Next: Mandrake 10.x - WYSIWYG Html editor?