On Wednesday 17 November 2004 08:40, Paul Howarth wrote: > On Wed, 2004-11-17 at 08:04 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:44:35 +0000, Robin Atwood wrote: > > > > Does the installer give an example of an absolute link that it's > > > > complaining about? > > > > > > Hmmm, so much for that theory. It actually complains about: > > > > > > [root@opal root]# ls -l /usr/tmp > > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 8 Jun 21 20:22 /usr/tmp -> /var/tmp > > > [root@opal root]# ls -al /var/tmp > > > total 2434 > > > drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 1024 Nov 16 18:17 . > > > drwxr-xr-x 19 root root 1024 Jun 6 17:31 .. > > > > > > which looks quite kosher to me. Any ideas what's throwing it? > > > > Apart from wrong permissions, what do you get if you make /usr/tmp a > > relative link to ../var/tmp? > > That should be OK since that's how the filesystem gets set up by > default. Making the relative symlink solved the problem and the upgrade failed. It then failed on a cpio rename for another directory: looks I will have to work through them. Thanks everybody for the help! Cheers... -Robin. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Robin Atwood. "This tag line left intentionally blank" ----------------------------------------------------------------------
