ID |
Date |
Icon |
Author |
Author Email |
Category |
OS |
ELOG Version |
Subject |
Draft
|
Tue May 10 12:35:40 2022 |
| Andrey | kowaraj4stuff@gmail.com | Bug report | Mac OSX | ELOG V3.1.4-493 | important detail: No ^M after the last |
> I think this is a bug report.
> However, I am not sure whether the problem is in the new version of Apple's WebKit (15.4) or in the ELOG itself.
>
> When we edit an ELOG record with Safari (as of version 15.4, new WebKit features added) there are extra "newline" symbols (actually ^M) being added after EACH line of the record.
>
> So, for instance, if I edit the following page:
> ```
> aaa
> aaa
> aaa
> ```
>
> then after a "Submit" (without actually any changes) the record becomes:
> ```
> aaa
>
> aaa
>
> aaa
> ```
>
> Our current ELOG version is "ELOG V3.1.4-4936b76".
> Could you please have a look? |
69529
|
Tue May 10 10:58:12 2022 |
| Andrey | kowaraj4stuff@gmail.com | Bug report | Mac OSX | ELOG V3.1.4-493 | reproduced on the latest newly compiled Elogd |
I have just setup a new ELOG server on another machine. I took the latest source code from here: http://elog.psi.ch/elog/download/tar/elog-latest.tar.gz. Compiled it and ran.
Still the same problem with Safari. |
69528
|
Tue May 10 09:31:40 2022 |
| Andrey | `kowaraj4stuff@gmail.com | Bug report | Mac OSX | ELOG V3.1.4-493 | duplicated/extra newlines (LF) after submit with Safari (since 15.4) |
I think this is a bug report.
However, I am not sure whether the problem is in the new version of Apple's WebKit (15.4) or in the ELOG itself.
When we edit an ELOG record with Safari (as of version 15.4, new WebKit features added) the number of "newline" symbols (actually LF, 0xA) are doubled.
So, for instance, if I edit the following page (1 LF symbol between "aaa" and "bbb"):
```
aaa
bbb
```
then after a "Submit" (without actually any changes) the record becomes (2 LF symbols):
```
aaa
bbb
```
then after a "Submit" (without actually any changes) the record becomes (4 LF symbols in between):
```
aaa
bbb
```
NOTE: The LF symbol at the end (after the "bbb" line) does NOT get duplicated (it gets truncated, I believe).
Our current ELOG version is "ELOG V3.1.4-4936b76".
Could you please have a look? |
69527
|
Fri May 6 21:12:11 2022 |
| Konstantin Olchanski | olchansk@triumf.ca | Info | Linux | all | PDF preview special steps to enable |
Ubuntu LTS 20.04 and others have elog PDF preview disabled by default. To enable,
please follow these steps, see https://daq00.triumf.ca/DaqWiki/index.php/Ubuntu#Enable_elog_PDF_preview
Enable elog PDF preview
see https://stackoverflow.com/questions/52998331/imagemagick-security-policy-pdf-blocking-conversion
xemacs -nw /etc/ImageMagick-6/policy.xml
remove this section at the end:
<!-- disable ghostscript format types -->
<policy domain="coder" rights="none" pattern="PS" />
<policy domain="coder" rights="none" pattern="PS2" />
<policy domain="coder" rights="none" pattern="PS3" />
<policy domain="coder" rights="none" pattern="EPS" />
<policy domain="coder" rights="none" pattern="PDF" />
<policy domain="coder" rights="none" pattern="XPS" />
K.O. |
69525
|
Thu May 5 11:14:20 2022 |
| Antonio Bulgheroni | antonio.bulgheroni@gmail.com | Question | Windows | 3.1.4 | elog root path |
Dear all,
I have a question for you. On my elog server I have plenty of images not included in any logbook entry, but that nevertheless I would the user to have access to that via the browser. In order words, I would like to have a link like this https://myelog/my_pics_folder/my_pic.png
I have realized that if I put my_pics_folder in the script folder, then it works as I wanted, but I strongly doubt this is the right position. If I put in the resources folder, it is not found and the elogd displays a message saying that my_pics_folder is not a valid logbook.
Do you have any suggestions for this problem?
Thanks in advance and enjoy your day!
toto |
69524
|
Wed Apr 27 19:36:25 2022 |
| Konstantin Olchanski | olchansk@triumf.ca | Question | Windows | 3.1.4-a04faf9f | Re: Vulnerability? |
> next is to request removal of ubuntu package.
contacted ubuntu security team, got very quick response.
they noted our request and informed us that ubuntu cannot remove packages from existing releases.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/elog/+bug/1970480
K.O. |
69523
|
Tue Apr 26 18:03:03 2022 |
| Konstantin Olchanski | olchansk@triumf.ca | Question | Windows | 3.1.4-a04faf9f | history of long-removed freebsd package, Re: Vulnerability? |
> > > > debian package still outdated?
the freebsd elog package was removed back in 2014 during
a purge of "not staged" packages. Originally submitted
in 2006, went through at least two maintainers.
https://www.freshports.org/www/elog/
K.O. |
69522
|
Tue Apr 26 17:39:49 2022 |
| Konstantin Olchanski | olchansk@triumf.ca | Question | Windows | 3.1.4-a04faf9f | Re: Vulnerability? |
> > > debian package still outdated?
> removed from debian-unstable
> https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/elog
> https://tracker.debian.org/news/1320035/removed-313-1-1-from-unstable/
contacted security@debian.org and they requested removal from the next buster/bullseye point releases:
https://bugs.debian.org/1010196
https://bugs.debian.org/1010197
next is to request removal of ubuntu package.
K.O. |