> Michael D. Berger wrote: > > > The strangest thing is that the problem is critically > > dependent on the soft link name. I have tried numerous > > combinations, and can make no sense of it. For example: > > It does sound like Selinux like Gordon said. Look at the > links and the > target dirs through "selinux eyes" with > > ls -lZ blah > > to see if there is anything in common with the good ones and the bad > ones whatever the name. > > -Andy As excellent suggestion. I read the books about a year ago, and decided that at this point I did not need selinux, so I deselected it on installation. (Is there some way I could confirm this?) In any case, I ran the test you suggest. The problem is still easily reproducible, but there are no selinux codes on any of the involved directories or links. There are, however, selinux codes on some files in /root, confirming that ls -lZ works as promised. (However, why are they there if selinux was deselected?) I add that a complex cgi is involved, but previously, the failure was confirmed with the cgi removed (and the configuration appropriately adjusted). There are no selinuz codes on the cgi. Thanks for your further thoughts. Mike. -- Michael D. Berger m.d.berger@xxxxxxxx
