> > On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 18:08 -0500, Michael D. Berger wrote: > > > 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?) > > Try running "getenforce". It'll tell you whether SELinux is enforcing, > permissive, or disabled. > > Paul. > Thanks, just what I needed. The answer is "Disabled". I am very impressed with selinux, but on the install procedure, I think there should be a warning that anyone who selects it, better know something about it. Mike. -- Michael D. Berger m.d.berger@xxxxxxxx
