On lundi, avril 29, 2002, at 03:58 , Jean-François Mertens wrote:
>
> But then it means A. Strange indeed has a problem _ at least for those
> 2 files ...
>
He is not the only one, as has been remarked before. This looks
like a kind of epidemic now. Several people had a non-working tar,
o
On Monday, April 29, 2002, at 03:38 , Chris Devers wrote:
> Interesting, but not *quite* what I get:
>
> % echo "test" > foo
> % /sw/bin/ln foo foo-hl
> % /sw/bin/ln -s foo foo-sl
> % /sw/bin/ls -s -1 foo*
>4 foo
>4 foo-hl
>0 foo-sl
> % /bin/ls -s -1 f
On Mon, 29 Apr 2002, Jean-François Mertens wrote:
> Are you sure they WERE wiped ?
> Which of those are not links ?
> When I do ls -s , all links _ soft and hard _ show up as size 0.
> With ls -l , you'll see the real sizes
> (this is the "ls" from fileutils, didn't check the behaviour of the
>
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Jean-François Mertens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon Apr 29, 2002 01:02:34 Europe/Brussels
> To: Alexander Strange <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [Fink-users] Weird erased Fink binaries
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-
On Sun, 28 Apr 2002, Alexander Strange wrote:
> My Fink installation recently stopped working.
Benjamin Esham was reporting this morning that his copy of gzip was also
zero bytes. He'd been having problems with it for a few days now, but this
detail didn't emerge until today. Maybe the problems
My Fink installation recently stopped working. I checked /sw/bin and the
following files were bad:
astrange@localhost /sw/bin: ls -s -1 | grep ' 0'
0 bzcmp
0 bzdiff
0 bzegrep
0 bzfgrep
0 bzgrep
0 bzless
0 bzmore
0 escputil
0 gimp-config
0 gimp-real
0 g
