It definitely was "chmod 666 ///," not chmod -R 666 ///" Bruce --- Patrick O'Callaghan <pocallaghan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-04-04 at 13:48 -0700, Bruce Hyatt wrote: > > --- Patrick O'Callaghan <pocallaghan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > In a Unix (and Linux) pathname any sequence of one or more > / > > > characters > > > collapses into a single /. > > > > > > Thus /// is exactly the same as / so your chmod affects > only > > > files in > > > the root directory (and not those beneath it). Which is > why I > > > thought /tmp might the cause of the problem. > > > > In that case, it seems odd to me that executing "chmod 777 > ///" > > didn't allow me to startx. > > Well, it seemed odd to me, which is why I suggested looking at > /tmp, but > that's definitely the meaning of ///. Try this to demonstrate: > > ls -l ///////////////////////tmp > > Are you sure it wasn't 'chmod -R 666 ///'? > > poc > > -- > fedora-list mailing list > fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe: > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list > ____________________________________________________________________________________ You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost. http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
