| ID |
Date |
Icon |
Author |
Author Email |
Category |
OS |
ELOG Version |
Subject |
|
1537
|
Fri Dec 2 11:46:11 2005 |
 | Rob de Bruin | rdbruin@zernike.nl | Request | Linux | 2.5.6.1 | Upgrading from ELOG V2.5.6-1 to ELOG V2.5.9 steps |
Hello,
Were still running (stable) Elog version V2.5.6-1.
We whant to upgrade to the latest version, can i just install the latest version over my older version??
I wil backup etc. offcourse.
Are there things i'll have to be alert to?
Can someone give me a link to a document?
Best regards Rob de Bruin |
|
1539
|
Sat Dec 3 23:32:13 2005 |
| Jesse Wodin | jwodin@stanford.edu | Question | Linux | 2.6.0 | Upgrade from 2.3.8 to 2.6.0 logbook problem |
Hi, I'd like to upgrade from an old version of elog 2.3.8 to 2.6.0. I installed the new version, and it runs fine, but it doesn't seem to see my old logbooks (the path in the conf file is correct). Do I have to upgrade my logbooks somehow?
THanks!
Jesse |
|
1542
|
Wed Dec 7 02:37:40 2005 |
| Jesse Wodin | jwodin@stanford.edu | | | | Proxy question |
I'm trying to run elog 2.6.0-beta4 under Apache 2.0. I follow the directions, and everything works fine, so my
elog runs as
http://grattalab3.stanford.edu/elog/
running under port 8082, with the following lines in my httpd.conf file
Redirect permanent /elog http://grattalab3.stanford.edu/elog
ProxyPass /elog/ http://grattalab3.stanford.edu:8082/
This machine has an alias, which is http://exo-elog.stanford.edu. My question is, how can I run elog so that
when someone types in this name, it brings up my elog? I know that I can make a VirtualHost entry and put a
redirect at the document root of that virtual host, but that seems clumsy. Can I just modify ProxyPass or add a
Redirect statement somehow?
Thanks! |
|
1571
|
Tue Jan 3 17:20:16 2006 |
| Mike | mlmoore@pella.com | Bug report | | V2.6.0 | elogd 2.6.0 crash on password Forgot? |
I have been having a repeatable crash on V2.6.0 everytime someone tries to recover a password using the option from the login screen. See attachment for a jpg of the message.
This is occuring on windows 2003. But I have also tested it on windows XP and it occurs there as well. In addition on XP I did a generic installtion and added the password option to the DEMO application and it fails there as well.
Mike |
| Attachment 1: elog-pw-crash.jpg
|
|
|
1668
|
Thu Feb 9 00:37:29 2006 |
| Alan Stone | alstone@fnal.gov | Question | Linux | 2.6.1-1622 | menu commands - user list does not match config list |
I am attempting to configure the Elog for use at the CMS Remote Operations Center
at Fermilab. I included the following option:
Menu commands = List, New, Reply, Duplicate, Find, Last day, Config, Admin, Login, Logout, Help
but the available list (after restarting the elog daemon) gives me:
CMS ROC Logbook, Page 1 of 1 Logged in as "Alan Stone" ELOG Home
New | Find | Select | CSV Import | Config | Logout | Help
Did I miss a step in the syntax instructions?
Thanks, Alan |
|
1672
|
Thu Feb 9 14:15:54 2006 |
| Dimitrios Tsirigkas | dimitrios.tsirigkas@cern.ch | Info | | | Posting without logging in! |
Hi all! This is an HTTP POST request submitted from the command line using curl, and providing no authentication information. If I can post as myself using this command, then shouldn't something be done about this? Cheers, Dimitris |
|
1744
|
Fri Mar 3 16:48:01 2006 |
| Alexandre Gauthier | supernaut@underwares.org | Bug fix | Mac OSX | SVN 1668 | Makefile patch for OS X 10.4 |
Hello,
I had trouble compiling elog on Mac OS X 10.4, and so, I hacked the makefile around...
I had to remove the -lutil flag that was passed to ld, for some reason. My guess is that it is not needed anymore with OS X 10.4... Also, the current install section of the makefile crapped out when using /usr/bin/install, I had to use install from gnu fileutils, which I installed through fink, which took precedence in my path... (/sw/bin/install), since bsd fileutil doesn't like the -D option.
For some reason, the paths to "install" in the makefile are either defined by the $(INSTALL) variable, or called directly. This seems not to be very consistent... In any case, I just changed it to use "install", no matter where it was in my path.
I'm currently hacking up something more elegant soon enough...
Also, I noticed that the binary produced was inconsistent and sluggish with the default wild CFLAGs, so I brought them back to something a bit more casual for Darwin. I used -Os because that's what Apple uses to build most OS X software. I also use -Os in my blackdog builds (which is an embedded PowerPC device) since space and memory *does* matters.
Well, here's the patch. I doubt it will be useful to anyone except for those who have gnu fileutils installed through fink, in their paths, and find themselves unable to build elog on OS X. |
| Attachment 1: makefile-osx-tiger.patch
|
Index: Makefile
===================================================================
--- Makefile (revision 1668)
+++ Makefile (working copy)
@@ -52,8 +52,9 @@
endif
ifeq ($(OSTYPE),darwin)
-LIBS += -lutil
+#LIBS += -lutil
CC = cc
+CFLAGS = -Os -fomit-frame-pointer -W -Wall
BINOWNER = root
BINGROUP = admin
endif
@@ -131,9 +132,9 @@
@if [ ! -f $(ELOGDIR)/logbooks/demo ]; then \
install -v -m 0644 logbooks/demo/* $(ELOGDIR)/logbooks/demo ; \
fi
-
+
@sed "s#\@PREFIX\@#$(PREFIX)#g" elogd.init_template > elogd.init
- @$(INSTALL) -v -D -m 0755 elogd.init $(RCDIR)/elogd
+ @install -v -D -m 0755 elogd.init $(RCDIR)/elogd
@if [ ! -f $(ELOGDIR)/elogd.cfg ]; then \
install -v -m 644 elogd.cfg $(ELOGDIR)/elogd.cfg ; \
|
|
1804
|
Mon Apr 10 20:28:37 2006 |
| Alan Stone | alstone@fnal.gov | Question | Linux | 2.6.1-1684 | How can I configure to prevent empty entries? |
I have accidentally created a couple of entries recently. It is pretty easy. I
fill in the header, type in a Subject, and then hit Enter, instead of TAB.
I have turned off the edit option intentionally.
I want to avoid this in the future. Is there a configuration option which would
confirm that the user before submitting an entry without a Body? I know I can require
attributes like Author and Subject. I am not sure I want to require a Body, in case
someone submits an entry with just an attachment (and a Subject).
Thanks, Alan |