No big deal - I looked at the code and you did a much more thorough job than I
would have done. Appreciate all of the hard work -- this product is masterful!

> Sorry for that. The idea is that the -4 is the minor number between releases
> (mainly for bug fixes and impatient users (;-) ). I accidently overwrote the
> -4 version several times when testing a new RPM building scheme, but I promise
> to take more care in the future (:-)))
> 
> Having the CVS revision in the executable is however a good idea and I will
> put it in.
> 
> > Stefan, would it be ok to add the "minor" revision level to the VERSION
> > constant?  I've been doing this after I download source just so I can keep
> > things straight, you keep cranking out versions ;->
> > 
> > EX: 
> > #define VERSION "2.5.4-4"
> > BECOMES
> > #define VERSION "2.5.4-4-1.483" or something like that?
> > 
> > Just a thought.
> > 
> > Thanks

We are trying to use ELog on Windows XP with Protection on individual log 
book and we unable to login after creating users even if we give correct 
user name and password login screen reappears. We are able to log in to the 
Elog when we use windows 98 Client we are running Elog on Windows XP and 
without password protection on logbook it is working fine with windows 98.

For win xp clients we are using winxp sp 1, ie 6.1 using a proxy server

That problem has been fixed in 2.5.4-5

I am getting the following error message with version 2.5.4-4 when I try to
add a new entry to a log book.

Attachment file "" empty or not found

If I add the following line to me elogd.cfg I do not get the error, but will
not be able to use attachments.

Enable attachments = 0

I recently upgraded from version 2.2.5 which did not have the problem.  I
did not see anything in the changelog referencing this type of change to how
attachments are handled.

I there something I need to set in the config so that an attachment is not
expected every time a new entry is made?

Sorry for that. The idea is that the -4 is the minor number between releases
(mainly for bug fixes and impatient users (;-) ). I accidently overwrote the
-4 version several times when testing a new RPM building scheme, but I promise
to take more care in the future (:-)))

Having the CVS revision in the executable is however a good idea and I will
put it in.

> Stefan, would it be ok to add the "minor" revision level to the VERSION
> constant?  I've been doing this after I download source just so I can keep
> things straight, you keep cranking out versions ;->
> 
> EX: 
> #define VERSION "2.5.4-4"
> BECOMES
> #define VERSION "2.5.4-4-1.483" or something like that?
> 
> Just a thought.
> 
> Thanks

Stefan, would it be ok to add the "minor" revision level to the VERSION
constant?  I've been doing this after I download source just so I can keep
things straight, you keep cranking out versions ;->

EX: 
#define VERSION "2.5.4-4"
BECOMES
#define VERSION "2.5.4-4-1.483" or something like that?

Just a thought.

Thanks

> > > Couldn't one include the extra <table> tag only when there is really more than
> > > one attribute per line.  All other lines could then be aligned properly.

I added that code in revision 1.471.

> So a configurable size limit seems appropriate, from which on 
> only 'Display attachment' is displayed.  And/Or, for files
> exceeding this limit, the first N (new config option) lines could be displayed.

Ok, I changed elogd such that only the first 1000 lines of inline attachments are
displayed, with a note of how many lines are truncated. By clicking on the attachment
name, one can still download the complete attachment. I guess the number of lines do
not have to be configurable, but if someone is not happy with the 1000 lines that could
be added.