In message <9412090728.AA12264@alv.teli.se>, jsa@alv.teli.se (Jonas Sandberg) writes: > What i didn't get was if the 'symlink' really should be a link or a > plain file, as it was in 4.1. Argh - please disregard my previous message that said that ./a should be the symlink, I did of course mean that "symlink" should be a soft link pointing at a non-existant file called ./a, which, if created, means the test failed. Sorry about that folks, complete brain fade. I plead a hedonistic weekend of good food and good friends and throw myself on the mercy of the court. Chris -- Christopher Samuel Phone: +44 1684 894644 chris@rivers.dra.hmg.gb N-115, Defence Research Agency, St Andrews Road, Great Malvern, England, UK postmaster@rivers.dra.hmg.gb usenet@rivers.dra.hmg.gb