Salix Forums

Gentlemen:

Trying the '14.0' version and things are going pretty good. But using 'find' I get pages of errors of the 'loops' and 'too many levels' variety, it seems especially in /usr. Is this a problem? In any event how can I get rid of those messages? I'd like to be able to use 'find' without distraction. I'll paste some examples if asked, but right now I'm in Mint.

While installing, I was unable to "Add a Linux partition" when setting up lilo. Every time I tried, the highlighted line just bounced back up to the line above. I had to edit my lilo.conf manually. The other steps in lilo setup worked fine, so I got a lilo.conf with everything in it except any partitions

There's a spelling mistake in the 'System Services: '(c)onsolekit'.

OK, here's an example.

tty=pts/0 root darkstar /usr $ f "zsh"

EXECUTING: find -L -O3 . -warn -xdev -name zsh -type f

find: Symbolic link `./bin/X11' is part of a loop in the directory hierarchy; we have already visited the directory to which it points.
find: Symbolic link `./X11/bin/X11' is part of a loop in the directory hierarchy; we have already visited the directory to which it points.
find: `./X11/share/gnome/help/pitivi/de/figures/codecscontainers.jpg ': Too many levels of symbolic links
find: `./X11/share/gnome/help/pitivi/de/figures/mainwindow.png': Too many levels of symbolic links
find: `./X11/share/gnome/help/pitivi/uk/figures/codecscontainers.jpg ': Too many levels of symbolic links
find: `./X11/share/gnome/help/pitivi/uk/figures/mainwindow.png': Too many levels of symbolic links
find: `./X11/share/gnome/help/pitivi/es/figures/codecscontainers.jpg ': Too many levels of symbolic links
find: `./X11/share/gnome/help/pitivi/es/figures/mainwindow.png': Too many levels of symbolic links
find: `./X11/share/gnome/help/pitivi/sl/figures/codecscontainers.jpg ': Too many levels of symbolic links
find: `./X11/share/gnome/help/pitivi/sl/figures/mainwindow.png': Too many levels of symbolic links
find: `./X11/share/gnome/help/pitivi/C/figures/codecscontainers.jpg ': Too many levels of symbolic links
find: `./X11/share/gnome/help/pitivi/C/figures/mainwindow.png': Too many levels of symbolic links
find: `./X11/share/gnome/help/pitivi/fr/figures/codecscontainers.jpg ': Too many levels of symbolic links
find: `./X11/share/gnome/help/pitivi/fr/figures/mainwindow.png': Too many levels of symbolic links
find: Symbolic link `./X11/include/gphoto2/gphoto2' is part of a loop in the directory hierarchy; we have already visited the directory to which it points.
find: `./share/gnome/help/pitivi/de/figures/codecscontainers.jpg ': Too many levels of symbolic links
find: `./share/gnome/help/pitivi/de/figures/mainwindow.png': Too many levels of symbolic links
find: `./share/gnome/help/pitivi/uk/figures/codecscontainers.jpg ': Too many levels of symbolic links
find: `./share/gnome/help/pitivi/uk/figures/mainwindow.png': Too many levels of symbolic links
find: `./share/gnome/help/pitivi/es/figures/codecscontainers.jpg ': Too many levels of symbolic links
find: `./share/gnome/help/pitivi/es/figures/mainwindow.png': Too many levels of symbolic links
find: `./share/gnome/help/pitivi/sl/figures/codecscontainers.jpg ': Too many levels of symbolic links
find: `./share/gnome/help/pitivi/sl/figures/mainwindow.png': Too many levels of symbolic links
find: `./share/gnome/help/pitivi/C/figures/codecscontainers.jpg ': Too many levels of symbolic links
find: `./share/gnome/help/pitivi/C/figures/mainwindow.png': Too many levels of symbolic links
find: `./share/gnome/help/pitivi/fr/figures/codecscontainers.jpg ': Too many levels of symbolic links
find: `./share/gnome/help/pitivi/fr/figures/mainwindow.png': Too many levels of symbolic links
find: Symbolic link `./include/gphoto2/gphoto2' is part of a loop in the directory hierarchy; we have already visited the directory to which it points.
find: Symbolic link `./X11R6/bin/X11' is part of a loop in the directory hierarchy; we have already visited the directory to which it points.
find: `./X11R6/share/gnome/help/pitivi/de/figures/codecscontainers.jpg ': Too many levels of symbolic links
find: `./X11R6/share/gnome/help/pitivi/de/figures/mainwindow.png': Too many levels of symbolic links
find: `./X11R6/share/gnome/help/pitivi/uk/figures/codecscontainers.jpg ': Too many levels of symbolic links
find: `./X11R6/share/gnome/help/pitivi/uk/figures/mainwindow.png': Too many levels of symbolic links
find: `./X11R6/share/gnome/help/pitivi/es/figures/codecscontainers.jpg ': Too many levels of symbolic links
find: `./X11R6/share/gnome/help/pitivi/es/figures/mainwindow.png': Too many levels of symbolic links
find: `./X11R6/share/gnome/help/pitivi/sl/figures/codecscontainers.jpg ': Too many levels of symbolic links
find: `./X11R6/share/gnome/help/pitivi/sl/figures/mainwindow.png': Too many levels of symbolic links
find: `./X11R6/share/gnome/help/pitivi/C/figures/codecscontainers.jpg ': Too many levels of symbolic links
find: `./X11R6/share/gnome/help/pitivi/C/figures/mainwindow.png': Too many levels of symbolic links
find: `./X11R6/share/gnome/help/pitivi/fr/figures/codecscontainers.jpg ': Too many levels of symbolic links
find: `./X11R6/share/gnome/help/pitivi/fr/figures/mainwindow.png': Too many levels of symbolic links
find: Symbolic link `./X11R6/include/gphoto2/gphoto2' is part of a loop in the directory hierarchy; we have already visited the directory to which it points.

Have you tested omitting the '-L' flag?

jayseye wrote:Have you tested omitting the '-L' flag?

Sure, but that just avoids looking at the problem, no? I'd rather the problem was not there. Or, if there is some reason for that, what is it?

Depends how you choose to look at it. On one hand, 'find' ignores symlinks by default, precisely to avoid such problems. This is like the old Vaudeville joke where the patient complains, "Doctor, it hurts when I hold my arm this way," and the doctor replies, "So don't hold your arm that way!"

OTOH you do have a valid question as to exactly why the problem occurs in this case. I suspect that the answer has to do with changing standards about where certain directories are located in the hierarchy. IIRC, Pat V has chosen to handle a recent major change by simply using a symlink.

jayseye wrote:Depends how you choose to look at it. On one hand, 'find' ignores symlinks by default, precisely to avoid such problems. This is like the old Vaudeville joke where the patient complains, "Doctor, it hurts when I hold my arm this way," and the doctor replies, "So don't hold your arm that way!"

OTOH you do have a valid question as to exactly why the problem occurs in this case. I suspect that the answer has to do with changing standards about where certain directories are located in the hierarchy. IIRC, Pat V has chosen to handle a recent major change by simply using a symlink.

There could be some logic to this sort of thing, but it seems unlikely. I'd say it's a bug, unless one of the devs wants to tell me otherwise. Salix prides itself on being carefully put together, so even small bugs are still bugs.

I'd love to be wrong about this and, if so, I hope that someone corrects me. At this point however, it might be wise to check this out in straight Slackware 14. If the results are the same there, then the Slackware area at LinuxQuestions.org may be the appropriate forum to ask about this.

Salix adds GUI tools, convenience, and attractiveness to Slackware. The devs here rarely second-guess Pat when it comes to basic design decisions.

jayseye wrote:I'd love to be wrong about this and, if so, I hope that someone corrects me. At this point however, it might be wise to check this out in straight Slackware 14. If the results are the same there, then the Slackware area at LinuxQuestions.org may be the appropriate forum to ask about this.

Salix adds GUI tools, convenience, and attractiveness to Slackware. The devs here rarely second-guess Pat when it comes to basic design decisions.

That's a very good idea, I will give S 14 a go and see what I see.

It's the same in slackware and it's not a problem. If you don't want results like that, don't use -L.

gapan wrote:It's the same in slackware and it's not a problem. If you don't want results like that, don't use -L.

Well you would know. But it seems like a mistake, can you give a brief explanation? Not if it's some esoteric stuff of course, or perhaps it's just too trivial a thing to worry about?