ID |
Date |
Icon |
Author |
Author Email |
Category |
OS |
ELOG Version |
Subject |
1144
|
Mon May 9 21:17:29 2005 |
| Stefan Ritt | stefan.ritt@psi.ch | Question | Linux | Other | 2.5.9 | Re: Version of GCC to use? |
> 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?
Yes. I use these files in several other projects as well, and want to maintain only a
single copy. So I have
elogd-x.x.x/
elogd-x.x.x/src/
....
mxml/
mxml/strlcpy.h
mxml/strlcpy.c
mxml/mxml.c
mxml/mxml.c
...
other-project-x.x.x/
other-project-x.x.x/
So both elogd and "other-project" can use strlcpy.c and mxml.c. If I would copy it to
elogd-x.x.x/src and fix a bug there, "other-project" would use a separate copy and not
profit from the bug fix. So I would have to mainain verious copies of the same file, which
make things complicated. I compile everything also under windows, so I cannot use soft
links. If there is a better way of how to do it, please let me know. |
1145
|
Mon May 9 21:22:46 2005 |
| Stefan Ritt | stefan.ritt@psi.ch | Question | Linux | Other | 2.5.9 | Re: Version of GCC to use? |
[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. |
1153
|
Wed May 18 19:52:41 2005 |
| Stefan Ritt | stefan.ritt@psi.ch | Bug report | | ? | Re: error message from this forum |
Heiko Scheit wrote: | Just after submitting the last message, the following error message was displayed:
Error sending Email via "mailsend.psi.ch": malformed address: synergie-infcom> |
Sombody used an invalid formed email address, like user<at>domain<dot>com, on which the SMTP server complained. I would like to note here that the email addresses registered in this forum are not published in any way, so there is no risk to get spam from that (except the normal elog notifications, which can be turned off easily). |
1159
|
Fri May 27 14:48:05 2005 |
| Stefan Ritt | stefan.ritt@psi.ch | Request | | 2.5.8-6 | Re: password encryption |
Alex H wrote: | Hi Stefan,
I have found a little problem with elog. I'am using ELOG V2.5.8-6. When I'am on the logon page,
I type my Login and password and hit "submit", in the bottom of IE, we can show my password without encryption, it can be dangerous. I have made a screenshot to explain my problem better.
Could you fix it for the next release ?
Thanks a lot.
Alex |
Unfortunately there is no real way around that. If a password is entered into a text box, it is always transferred in plain text (which means that in security-sensive installations one should always use SSL together with elog). I encrypt it on the server side and do an immediate redirect which "hided" the plain password, but if your connection is slow, you might see it for a moment. Unless nobody has a clever idea of how to prevent this, we're out of luck. |
1163
|
Mon May 30 20:16:11 2005 |
| Stefan Ritt | stefan.ritt@psi.ch | Request | Windows | 2.5.8-6 | Re: password encryption |
Emiliano Gabrielli wrote: |
I don't have double checked .. but .. why we need to pass the sensible information in the Query String ??
Are you sure that putting it in an hidden field (and eventualli using a GET methon in the <form>-tag) can't be a solution? |
Hidden means only these fields are not shown in the form, but they are added to the URL in the same way as non-hidden fields. But I got another idea: I will try to use a POST form instead of the GET form. Using the POST method, fields are attached to the request and not present in the URL. Hope this will work. When I find some time to work on it I will let you know. |
1166
|
Wed Jun 1 16:33:54 2005 |
| Stefan Ritt | stefan.ritt@psi.ch | Bug report | All | 2.5.9 | Re: Logbook locking issue |
Sorry about my unusual slow response, but I'm pretty busy these days. I hope I will be able to address this problem in a two weeks from now.
Steve Jones wrote: | Stefan, any ideas on this problem?
Quote: | Our eLog is set to create logbook entry locks and after 30minutes prevent one from re-editing an entry, thus forcing a REPLY to be created.
SCENARIO: When an *attempt* is made to edit a logbook after the 30minute timer, one gets the message that EDITING is prevented and to use the browser "Back" button.
PROBLEM: The display now shows that particular entry to be locked, even though the attempt to edit was blocked. It appears that the lock flag is set prior to the "Edit" attempt being blocked and thus the lock flag is never "unset". |
|
|
1172
|
Sat Jun 4 10:59:52 2005 |
| Stefan Ritt | stefan.ritt@psi.ch | Bug report | Windows | 2.6.0-beta | Re: Incorrect Display |
I finally found some time to fix the pippo-bug .
It had to do with the request that one can turn on and off the summary lines of the text body in Guest list display. So if this option does not contain Text, the text summary is not shown for guest access, but only for registered access. This modification had the side effect that one column was dropped on the non-guest access. |
1173
|
Sat Jun 4 12:21:21 2005 |
| Stefan Ritt | stefan.ritt@psi.ch | Bug report | Linux | 2.5.9 | Re: reverse sort option does not work for quick filter |
Heiko Scheit wrote: | The 'reverse sort' option does not work for quick filter searches. In the
URL there is always written 'reverse=0'. For normal 'Find' it works OK. |
I don't understand the problem. If I take the example elogd.cfg from the distribution, it sorts in reverse order, since the file contains Reverse sort=1. If I apply a quick filter, the result is still sorted in reverse order (entry ID from high to low). If I set Reverse sort=0, the even after applying a quick filter, the entries are sorted with their ID from low to high. Applying a quick filter should not put a reverse=0 into the URL, so it's strange to me where this comes from. Can you try to reproduce the problem with the demo elogd.cfg? |