> > Ah, you test me!  Perhaps I will attempt to dig into this but I may have to leave the
> > integration up to you, Stefan.  Seems that there would be two roads to go:
> > 1> Move away from standalone and start to rely on Apache
> > 2> Continue with the standalone theme and build in LDAP authentication (which could
> > also give you groups functions as well). 
> > 
> > I think I would opt for <2>
> 
> <1> would only make sense if the functionality could be completely implemented inside
> Apache, without (much) modification of elog. Otherwise I agree that <2> would be more
> following the general lines of elog. I was considering to implement PAM (pluggable
> authorization module) support into elog, which is quite easy to implement and gives you
> to power of having LDAP, Kerberos, Unix username, Windows NT Domain and much more. But
> that would them be restricted to elog running under Linux (and Solaris I guess), since
> I'm not aware of a PAM implementation under Windows.
> 
> Implementing LDAP directly into elog gives me the problem that we don't use LDAP
> authentication at our institute (it's Kerberos in fact). So I would have to set up my own
> LDAP server for testing, plus we at our institute don't have a direct benefit from that,
> which would make it hard for me to justify to spend time on.


Yes, PAM is highly dependent upon Unix and PAM would work under Solaris just fine.  Your
problem lies with Windows - hence my LDAP suggestion.

And LDAP isn't an easy thing to setup, but I bet there is a quick and dirty "test" bench that
could be rigged using OpenLDAP.  Like I indicated, I'll see what I can dig up on this front -
but I make no promises wrt delivery time!

What is the recommended version of gcc to use with elog 2.5.9?  I searched
the discussion database but found nothing pertaining to this. 

Thanks  

> > What is the recommended version of gcc to use with elog 2.5.9?  I searched
> > the discussion database but found nothing pertaining to this. 
> 
> Well, the same code compiles on gcc and on Visual C++ under Windows, so
> hopefully there is no dependence on the gcc version (;-)
> 
> I use gcc 3.2.3 on Scientific Linux 3.03.

I ask because I get a dependency that I did not have before with 2.5.3. 
Compiling with my same 'ole gcc 2.95.2 I see that I now need mxml.h and
strlcpy.h.  Trying to compile under gcc 3.4 results in all kinds of errors.

> > I ask because I get a dependency that I did not have before with 2.5.3. 
> > Compiling with my same 'ole gcc 2.95.2 I see that I now need mxml.h and
> > strlcpy.h.  Trying to compile under gcc 3.4 results in all kinds of errors.
> 
> mxml.h and strlcpy.h are part of the elog tar ball. When untar'ed, they get copied
> into a separate directory:
> 
> ...
> -rwxr-xr-x ritt/lke      15090 2005-05-09 13:09:54 elog-2.5.9/eloglang.japanese
> -rwxr-xr-x ritt/lke      17587 2005-05-09 13:09:54 elog-2.5.9/eloglang.spanish
> drwxr-xr-x ritt/lke          0 2005-05-09 13:09:54 mxml/
> -rwxr-xr-x ritt/lke      45577 2005-05-09 13:09:54 mxml/mxml.c
> -rwxr-xr-x ritt/lke       2198 2005-05-09 13:09:54 mxml/strlcpy.c
> -rwxr-xr-x ritt/lke       4359 2005-05-09 13:09:54 mxml/mxml.h
> -rwxr-xr-x ritt/lke        567 2005-05-09 13:09:54 mxml/strlcpy.h
> 
> I have right now no access to 3.4. Once I get it, I will address the errors
> occuring there.

Ah, now I need to figure out how to pickup the new includes.  
BTW, personally I wouldn't take my word regarding the 3.4 errors -- I was simply
trying an alternative version and it is likely that the way ours is configured is the
problem.

Thanks!

> > > I ask because I get a dependency that I did not have before with 2.5.3. 
> > > Compiling with my same 'ole gcc 2.95.2 I see that I now need mxml.h and
> > > strlcpy.h.  Trying to compile under gcc 3.4 results in all kinds of errors.
> > 
> > mxml.h and strlcpy.h are part of the elog tar ball. When untar'ed, they get copied
> > into a separate directory:
> > 
> > ...
> > -rwxr-xr-x ritt/lke      15090 2005-05-09 13:09:54 elog-2.5.9/eloglang.japanese
> > -rwxr-xr-x ritt/lke      17587 2005-05-09 13:09:54 elog-2.5.9/eloglang.spanish
> > drwxr-xr-x ritt/lke          0 2005-05-09 13:09:54 mxml/
> > -rwxr-xr-x ritt/lke      45577 2005-05-09 13:09:54 mxml/mxml.c
> > -rwxr-xr-x ritt/lke       2198 2005-05-09 13:09:54 mxml/strlcpy.c
> > -rwxr-xr-x ritt/lke       4359 2005-05-09 13:09:54 mxml/mxml.h
> > -rwxr-xr-x ritt/lke        567 2005-05-09 13:09:54 mxml/strlcpy.h
> > 
> > I have right now no access to 3.4. Once I get it, I will address the errors
> > occuring there.
> 
> Ah, now I need to figure out how to pickup the new includes.  
> BTW, personally I wouldn't take my word regarding the 3.4 errors -- I was simply
> trying an alternative version and it is likely that the way ours is configured is the
> problem.
> 
> Thanks!


Ok, now I see the issue - the tar extract created the mxml directory in the root (not
under the created directory elog-2.5.9).  Is there a reason why these includes are not
placed in the src dir like the regex.h/.c include?

> > > > I ask because I get a dependency that I did not have before with 2.5.3. 
> > > > Compiling with my same 'ole gcc 2.95.2 I see that I now need mxml.h and
> > > > strlcpy.h.  Trying to compile under gcc 3.4 results in all kinds of errors.
> > > 
> > > mxml.h and strlcpy.h are part of the elog tar ball. When untar'ed, they get copied
> > > into a separate directory:
> > > 
> > > ...
> > > -rwxr-xr-x ritt/lke      15090 2005-05-09 13:09:54 elog-2.5.9/eloglang.japanese
> > > -rwxr-xr-x ritt/lke      17587 2005-05-09 13:09:54 elog-2.5.9/eloglang.spanish
> > > drwxr-xr-x ritt/lke          0 2005-05-09 13:09:54 mxml/
> > > -rwxr-xr-x ritt/lke      45577 2005-05-09 13:09:54 mxml/mxml.c
> > > -rwxr-xr-x ritt/lke       2198 2005-05-09 13:09:54 mxml/strlcpy.c
> > > -rwxr-xr-x ritt/lke       4359 2005-05-09 13:09:54 mxml/mxml.h
> > > -rwxr-xr-x ritt/lke        567 2005-05-09 13:09:54 mxml/strlcpy.h
> > > 
> > > I have right now no access to 3.4. Once I get it, I will address the errors
> > > occuring there.
> > 
> > Ah, now I need to figure out how to pickup the new includes.  
> > BTW, personally I wouldn't take my word regarding the 3.4 errors -- I was simply
> > trying an alternative version and it is likely that the way ours is configured is the
> > problem.
> > 
> > Thanks!
> 
> 
> Ok, now I see the issue - the tar extract created the mxml directory in the root (not
> under the created directory elog-2.5.9).  Is there a reason why these includes are not
> placed in the src dir like the regex.h/.c include?


Ack, ok, I moved the includes into src and tried re-compiling -- and received several
"undefined symbol" errors from the linker.  Clearly the libraries cannot be moved into src?

> [ritt@pc5082 /tmp]$ tar -xzvf elog-2.5.9-2.tar.gz
> elog-2.5.9/
> elog-2.5.9/doc/
> elog-2.5.9/doc/adminguide.html
> ...
> mxml/
> mxml/mxml.c
> mxml/strlcpy.c
> mxml/mxml.h
> mxml/strlcpy.h
> [ritt@pc5082 /tmp]$ cd elog-2.5.9
> [ritt@pc5082 elog-2.5.9]$ make
> gcc -O3 -funroll-loops -fomit-frame-pointer -W -Wall -o elog src/elog.c
> gcc -O3 -funroll-loops -fomit-frame-pointer -W -Wall -c -o regex.o src/regex.c
> ... skipping warnings ...
> gcc -O3 -funroll-loops -fomit-frame-pointer -W -Wall -c -o mxml.o ../mxml/mxml.c
> gcc -O3 -funroll-loops -fomit-frame-pointer -W -Wall -c -o strlcpy.o ../mxml/strlcpy.c
> gcc -O3 -funroll-loops -fomit-frame-pointer -W -Wall -I../mxml -o elogd src/elogd.c regex.o
> mxml.o strlcpy.o
> gcc -O3 -funroll-loops -fomit-frame-pointer -W -Wall -o elconv src/elconv.c
> [ritt@pc5082 elog-2.5.9]$
> 
> --------------
> No undefined functions here. I guess you have an old Makefile? Just use the complete tar
> package from the last version.

Ok, now I have it.  Old Makefile because I had to perform some deletions to make "make" work
right under Solaris.  Basically, I took out the ifdef structures - "make" was blowing up on
these.  Everything now compiles perfectly -- don't change anything.  Thanks for that last pointer.

Steve