>> starting rpc daemons:  portmapportmap: permission denied
>> 
>> ...then a few lines down...
>> 
>> quotaon: permission denied
>
>Probably filesystem corruption...
>

I think you were right.  (Thanks for the second opinion, too, Bill)  See 
below.

[bunch of stuff snipped]

>> Now I can't print, and lpd's log doesn't even show my attempts to print, 
>> even though it shows my abortive attempts from before I had gs and the 
>> stylewriter stuff set up.
>
>I don't quite know what is causing the above.  You might still be rather 
>close to your disk limit, tho.

IIRC, the last time I checked, after removing the games, I was still at 
95%.  At one time, I was at 105%  How does that happen?!

[snip again]

>> I read through the "Red Book's" explanation of the setuid and sticky 
>> bits, but I really don't know if that applies here.  I have also tried to 
>> set the permissions on both of these files by using "chmod ug+s 
>> ./portmap", but that didn't seem to work.
>
>Ah, the problem is that these files have become corrupted.  Are you using 
>the ncrscsi driver on an '030-based Mac?  If so, you might consider 
>changing to the SBC driver instead.  If you'll notice, the 'b' in the 
>first column above indicates that these files are now block special files 
>(i.e. block device interfaces), not very useful as executables ;-)  
>You'll need to reinstall the base distribution to fix this.
>

I am using a IIci (68030).  The drive in question is also a Quantum GO 
160.  Doesn't the ncrscsi driver have a grudge for Quantum drives, or was 
that something else about Quantum drives I am half-remembering?  Guess I 
should have seen it coming.  Where can I get the SBC driver?  (I should 
know by now.)

Anyway, I re-installed base12, rebuilt devices (was that wrong?) and did 
a "fsck -f".  I got a list of bad blocks that literally filled the length 
of the screen.  Should I re-format and start over?  I think I may anyway, 
and apply some things I have learned about compiling in the last few 
weeks.

>> Also, as per the stylewriter set up instructions, I have a symbolic link 
>> from a file /dev/stylewriter to /dev/tty01, which according to the 
>> instructions is the print port for NetBSD.  To which user should tty01 
>> belong?  Mine shows an ownership of uucp wheel.  Should it be root wheel, 
>> or is there a reason that tty01 (and I notice now, tty00) should belong 
>> to uucp?
>
>I think that the reasons for this are leftover from when uucp was a 
>fairly common way for unix machines to communicate.  I think that 
>/etc/mtree shows to whom all the files should belong.
>

I will look it up.  Just seems odd to me.  I know computers used to use 
uucp to talk (Still do; two years ago I got all my news and mail by uucp. 
 Looking to again RSN.), but I didn't think that they would use uucp to 
talk to printers.  So, it just seems odd to me.

BTW, after the base12 re-install, the portmap and quotaon were still 
listed as block files.  Are they maybe in etc12?  No, they are not.  Like 
an idiot, I just re-installed etc12.  Now I'm going to have to add me as 
a user, fix /etc/rc and /etc/rc.local, etc, etc, etc.

Too late now.  I'll start tomorrow.

Thanks for your help,

Sean.


            T. Sean (Theo) Schulze
TSSchulze@aol.com          71410.25 @compuserve.com
***************************************************
Always remember to pillage BEFORE you burn.