Re: Extendable list of numeric items, posted by David Pilgram on Fri Jul 12 17:39:53 2024
|
Just to add some points for others who may find this of use in future.
The hard coded number of entries options or Moptions can have is 100. You can edit the code and recompile, but that would
|
|
Re: Elog/ImageMagick under windows 11, posted by Aled Isaac on Wed Jul 24 17:21:45 2024
|
I've managed to get it working and the problem wasn't what I thought it was. It turns out that ImageMagick v7 doesn't have a "convert.exe"
program in the windows version due to some conflict with a disk conversion utility. The "convert.exe" has been replaced with a "magick.exe"
and so I made a CONVERT.BAT script within the elog folder with content "magick %*". This workaround appears to have solved the problem. |
|
Re: possible to modify link in email notification, posted by Stefan Ritt on Thu Jul 4 09:23:50 2002
|
Having the URL link to a different logbook is right now not possible. But
what about setting up a single logbook with a write password. Everybody can
access it for reading, but only these people who know the write password
|
|
Re: elog submit without user and password, posted by Stefan Ritt on Tue Jul 9 10:58:18 2002
|
> With elog it is possible to submit messages to a password protected
> logbook without specifying the -u option. I.e. NO PASSWORD is
> necessary to submit a message. I assume it is related to the problem
|
|
Re: elog submit without user and password, posted by H. Scheit on Tue Jul 9 15:28:33 2002
|
> > With elog it is possible to submit messages to a password protected
> > logbook without specifying the -u option. I.e. NO PASSWORD is
> > necessary to submit a message. I assume it is related to the problem
|
|
Re: elog submit without user and password, posted by Stefan Ritt on Wed Jul 10 08:53:21 2002
|
> I guess it cannot and doesn't have to be 100% save. Maybe if the web
> interface is used for a new message a long random number (let's call
> it newID) can be included, which elog remembers for some time (say 1
|
Re: Port specification with -p fails (SOLVED, more or less), posted by Joeri Mastop on Mon Jul 15 15:05:22 2002
|
> Anyone seen similar problems?
Probably not if you read the config file, 'cause I didn't. Shame on me...
|
|
Re: Port specification with -p fails (SOLVED, more or less), posted by Stefan Ritt on Tue Jul 23 09:12:14 2002
|
> > Anyone seen similar problems?
> Probably not if you read the config file, 'cause I didn't. Shame on me...
>
|