Demo Discussion
Forum Config Examples Contributions Vulnerabilities
  Discussion forum about ELOG, Page 785 of 806  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Icondown Author Author Email Category OS ELOG Version Subject
  666   Thu Aug 12 22:18:56 2004 Agree Steve Jonessteve.jones@freescale.comQuestionOther2.5.4Re: Q: On Solaris 8, eLog not honoring USR= and GRP= cfg file directives?
> > I'm not sure if this is a configuration problem or a bug, but running
> > v2.5.4subver1.413, elogd runs as user ROOT (UID0) even though the following
> > is in the elogd.cfd file:
> > 
> > Usr = nobody
> > Grp = essadm
> > 
> > All other directives added to the cfg file work, so I know eLog is reading
> > the cfg file.  
> > 
> > The elogd binary *is not* setuid 0.
> 
> I could not reproduce your problem with the current version (Revision 1.460)
> under Linux. I guess you made sure that user "nobody" and group "essadm" exist.
> Try to run elogd interactively, if you see any error message (without "-D"
> flag). In the most recent version (1.460), I added some more debugging code
> which tells you if elogd successfully fell back to another user, if you use the
> "-v" (verbose) flag.
> 
> If all that does not help, I guess it's some peculiarity of Solaris. Maybe
> someone else using Solaris has some idea. All elogd does is a call to 
> 
> setuser("<user>");
> 
> I see no reason why this should not work on Solaris.

Ok, just checking.  I will fiddle around with running it interactively and see what
I get, plus I'll have a look at the setuser function under Solaris.

Just for grins, what version of compiler are you using under Linux?

Thanks again!
  669   Thu Aug 12 23:32:46 2004 Agree Steve Jonessteve.jones@freescale.comBug reportLinux2.5.4Re: too many <table> tags
> > 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.
> 
> Sure one can do a lot of things if one has enough time and not tens of other
> requests on the wishlist which really concern some functionality and not just
> cosmetics.

Ouch!
And just to add insult to injury, the same <table> structure doesn't even look the
same between, say, IE6.0 and FireFox 0.9!!

Stefan, keep up the good work!
  696   Wed Sep 8 17:39:43 2004 Agree Steve Jonessteve.jones@freescale.comBug reportAll2.5.4-2Re: URL bug in elogd.cfg
> This problem has been fixed in revision 1.462

Thank you!
  713   Wed Oct 6 06:14:36 2004 Agree Steve Jonessteve.jones@freescale.comCommentAll2.5.4Re: Enhanced "eLog Version" Variable
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
  872   Mon Jan 10 20:42:31 2005 Agree David Kappelngreply@gmx.netRequestWindows Re: Extendable options for conditional attributes
> > > Playing with all the configuration possibilities I have one issue:
> > > I like to use the "Extendable options" but I can't combine them with 
> > > the "Conditional attributes".
> > 
> > That was never ment to work. But I found some time to implement it. If you
> > download elog255-4.exe from today it whould work. Let me know if you have
> > problems.
> 
Hello Stefan,

the changes I asked for, are working as requested. The extandable options are 
inserted into the correct line of the conditional attributes. 

  Thanks.

PS: While testing on a new demo logbook, I first made the mistake to declare 
both options, the first one and the related one as extendable. But I can imagine 
that this was really never ment to be implemented.
  924   Tue Feb 8 15:41:55 2005 Agree Emiliano GabrielliAlberT@SuperAlberT.itBug fixLinux2.5.6Re: erroneus encoding
the following patch corrects the problem, plz apply :


--- elogd.c     2005-02-03 16:46:10.000000000 +0100
+++ elogd_albert.c      2005-02-08 15:40:36.000000000 +0100
@@ -6178,7 +6178,7 @@
    if (getcfg("global", "charset", str, sizeof(str)))
       rsprintf("Content-Type: text/html;charset=%s\r\n", str);
    else
-      rsprintf("Content-Type: text/html;charset=%S\r\n", DEFAULT_HTTP_CHARSET);
+      rsprintf("Content-Type: text/html;charset=%s\r\n", DEFAULT_HTTP_CHARSET);

    if (use_keepalive) {
       rsprintf("Connection: Keep-Alive\r\n");
@@ -11267,7 +11267,7 @@
    rsprintf("Server: ELOG HTTP %s\r\n", VERSION);
    rsprintf("Accept-Ranges: bytes\r\n");
    rsprintf("Connection: close\r\n");
-   rsprintf("Content-Type: text/plain;charset=%S\r\n", DEFAULT_HTTP_CHARSET);
+   rsprintf("Content-Type: text/plain;charset=%s\r\n", DEFAULT_HTTP_CHARSET);
    rsprintf("Pragma: no-cache\r\n");
    rsprintf("Expires: Fri, 01 Jan 1983 00:00:00 GMT\r\n\r\n");
  947   Wed Feb 16 08:45:54 2005 Agree Emiliano GabrielliAlberT@SuperAlberT.itBug reportLinux2.5.6Re: preselected values and conditional options
> > ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; 
> > Attributes = Author, Type, Category, Subject 
> > Required Attributes = Author, Type, Subject 
> > Options Type = Deposition{1}, Arc Studies{1}, Conditioning{1}, Vacuum{2}, 
> > Other{3} 
> > Preset Type = Deposition 
>  
> The "Preset xxx" option actually never was ment to be used with conditional 
> attributes. I added that functionality in rev. 1.553. Please give it a try. 
 
it works fine !!! thank you so much (btw, using Preset xxx{1} it doesn't 
works.. but it should be the correct beaviour) 
  1003   Wed Mar 23 11:19:51 2005 Agree Emiliano GabrielliAlberT@SuperAlberT.itInfoLinux Re: New Debian package (2.5.8+r1592) -- needs testing
> Hi to all,
> 
> I've prepared a new Debian package.  This version will probably be the one
> which you'll find in Sarge/stable.
> 
> There are some invasive changes in this version which call for a serious
> test.  In accordance with a suggestion, I've changed the configuration
> mechanism.  For details, please read the NEWS.Debian file attached.
> 
> Could the Debian users who follow this forum test it and give some feedback?
> You can download the package from the following link:
> 
>   http://l10n-turkish.alioth.debian.org/debian/elog_2.5.8+r1592-1_i386.deb
> 
> Thanks in advance for your participation,

It seems to work nice to me.
Just another suggestion: I think it would be better to insert a commented out
example for all allowed parameters in the distributed  /etc/default/elog

nice work :-)
ELOG V3.1.5-3fb85fa6