On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 13:08 +0930, Tim wrote: > On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 14:35 -0400, Rickey Moore wrote: > > found two dead links against the old /usr/X11/bin/X > > and /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/xkbd Geeezz... X11 doesn't exist anymore > > (<sigh> now everydarn thing is in /usr/bin) > > I can understand the move away from /usr/X11... but why didn't it go > to /usr/share/X11 or something like that, rather than straight into the > root trees? > > If I do a "ls -l /etc/X11", I also find two dead links, thus: > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 24 Nov 4 01:41 X -> ../../usr/X11R6/bin/Xorg > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 24 Sep 23 2005 X.rpmsave -> ../../usr/X11R6/bin/Xorg > > I expect the second one (the rpmsave) does no harm, but I don't like the > looks of the first. What's really odd, is that despite the listing > highlighting the link as broken (inverse red highlighting), the files > *are* where it points to. Though the Xorg file (in /usr/X11R6/bin/) is > also oddly highlighted in inverse red. I presume that's due to the > owner sticky bit being set. > > -rws--x--x 1 root root 2191903 Sep 22 2005 Xorg > This is SUID so it is giving you a warning about that. The soft link pointing to it is also giving you the same warning. Unfortunately they chose the same colors to mark a SUID file as they did for a broken link. > My system was a clean install, and normal updates via YUM. > My FC5 system (clean install) has the binary X in /usr/bin My FC4 system (clean install) has X in /usr/X11R6/bin and in /etc/X11, both with a link to the binary /usr/X11R6/bin/Xorg. I think the version of FC you are running makes a difference. There also is the version difference of Xorg between the two systems. FC4 has xorg-x11-6.8.2-37.FC4.49.2 and FC5 has xorg-x11-server-Xorg-1.0.1-9.fc5 so there was a change in the positioning of files as they moved to the Xorg version 1 release. > -- > (Currently running FC4, in case that's important to the thread) > > Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. > I read messages from the public lists. >
