In message <20050901001419.2B7023C002F@berkshire.machshav.com>, "Steven M. Bell
ovin" writes:
>In message <20050831231543.GU6862@bcd.geek.com.au>, Daniel Carosone writes:
>>
>>--8r7XanZh5e+04UYw
>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>>Content-Disposition: inline
>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>>
>>On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 08:15:09AM -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>>> >See http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-pkg/2005/05/06/0008.html
>>>=20
>>> OK.  But why don't I have to do that on my other machines?
>>
>>Any differences in directory structure under /emul/linux between the
>>machines?  Perhaps the chdir is winding up under /emul in one case,
>>and not in another where the /emul instance of the directory doesn't
>>exist?
>>
>
>I doubt it, though I can check -- all of the machines in question have 
>suse91 installed, and I haven't touched anything there.  But I'll look; 
>thanks for the suggestion.

I checked the permissions and directory names for everything under
/emul/linux on the failing machine and one where it works.  The failing 
machine has /emul/linux/usr/pkg, but I didn't see anything under it 
that looked relevant.  It has a few other extra directories, too, to 
support some other linux applications such as firefox.  Among the 
common directories, the only difference I found was that the failing 
machine's /emul/linux/root was mode 700 instead of 755.  Since we 
weren't running acroread as root, I doubt that that's relevant.

		--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb