[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: multilog: fatal
- To: qmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: multilog: fatal
- From: Jeremy Henty <jeremy.henty@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 17:03:56 +0100
- Delivered-to: de5-qmail@sws5.ornl.gov
- Delivered-to: mailing list qmail@list.cr.yp.to
- Mailing-list: contact qmail-help@list.cr.yp.to; run by ezmlm
- Reply-to: Jeremy Henty <jeremy.henty@xxxxxxxxx>
On Tuesday, May 3, 2005 4:46 pm, Scott Gifford <sgifford@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>"Dmitry Semenov" <semenov@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> The problem was in that RH can't understand symlink.
>
>... Linux has properly supported symlinks for as long as I've been using it.
Linux certainly has no problems with symlinks, but sometimes security-paranoid
applications will object to symlinks in sensitive paths. Perhaps something in
RH is extra-picky about the paths of system binaries? (That's just a guess off
the top of my head. I can't think of any other plausible reason why replacing
a symlink with a copy should make a difference.)
Regards,
Jeremy Henty