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

> W

> >

> > > 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
> > 
> > First, upgrade to 2.5.4-5 (if you haven't done so). If the problem persists,
> > please start elogd on the server with the "-v" flag, capture the screen output
> > and send it to me by email so that I can have a look. Please send also your
> > elogd.cfg file.
> > 
> > - Stefan
> 
> Mr. Stefan
> 
> Following is elogd.cfg file text:
> 
> [global]
> port = 8080
> Main Tab = Home
> Protect Selection page = 1
> 
> [Daily Log]
> Password file = pwdfile
> Self register = 0
> Login expiration = 0
> Admin user = user
> Logout to main = 1
> Theme = bubbles
> Comment = Daily Call tracking and Issue Solving
> Attributes = Author, Type, Category, Subject
> IOptions Author = icon6.gif, icon7.gif
> Options Type = Routine, Software Installation, Problem Fixed, Configuration, Other
> Options Category = General, Hardware, Software, Network, Other
> Extendable Options = Category
> Required Attributes = Author, Type
> Page Title = ELOG - $subject
> Reverse sort = 1
> Quick filter = Date, Type

Mr. Stefan

We tried installing elog on another pc with almost the same configuration and are 
able to run it without any problems now.

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

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

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

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?

That problem has been fixed in 2.5.4-5

There are too many <table> tags when displaying a singel entry.  E.g.
in http://midas.psi.ch/elogs/Config+Examples/1 the row 'Configuration Name'
is not aligned with the others (see attachment).

Looking at the HTML one sees that there are <table> tags for each row
which should not be there:

<tr><td><table width="100%" cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><tr><td nowrap
class="attribname">Author:</td><td class="attribvalue">
Stefan Ritt&nbsp</td>
</tr></table></td></tr>

> There are too many <table> tags when displaying a singel entry.  E.g.
> in http://midas.psi.ch/elogs/Config+Examples/1 the row 'Configuration Name'
> is not aligned with the others (see attachment).

The <table> tags are there on purpose. As you can combine several attributes
into one line (see this forum for example), it's necessary to make an
independent <table> for each line. This causes the shifting as you noted
correctly. To avoid this, simple increase the width of the attribute name field
in the CSS file. Edit <elo>/themes/default/default.css, find the section with
".attibname" and change the width from 150px to 200px, such as

.attribname {
  width:200px;
  background-color:#CCCCFF;
  border:1px solid #0000FF;
  border-top:1px solid white;
  border-left:1px solid white;
  padding:3px;
}

I tried this with http://midas.psi.ch/elogs/Config+Examples/1, and it wroked
fine (see attachment). [I had to increase the text size a bit in my browser to
reproduce the initial problem]

> > There are too many <table> tags when displaying a singel entry.  E.g.
> > in http://midas.psi.ch/elogs/Config+Examples/1 the row 'Configuration Name'
> > is not aligned with the others (see attachment).
> 
> The <table> tags are there on purpose. As you can combine several attributes
> into one line (see this forum for example), it's necessary to make an
> independent <table> for each line. 

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.

To increase the width is not really a solution, since this depends on the
text size used.  See attachment with really big text.

> 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.

> > 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!

> > > 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.

I think the text display of ASCII files, which is new in version
2.5.4, is not a good idea.  E.g. I had a large ps file attached
to one entry and it took a long time display this entry (over DSL).
Then I saw that the ps-file is displayed as text, which is not really 
useful.  

Probably it is fine to display only files ending in '.txt' per default.
In addition a file that has more than say 1000 lines should probably 
also not be displayed (as default, optional OK).  

Cheers, Heiko

[...]
> Probably it is fine to display only files ending in '.txt' per default.
> In addition a file that has more than say 1000 lines should probably 
> also not be displayed (as default, optional OK).  

No, '.txt' would definitely not be enough for me. I'm using elog to log all
administration of our network. In many cases, I simply attach a configuration
file. All those files are plain ASCII and none of them end in '.txt' - and I
would most definitely like them to be displayed inline like they are now. In
fact, this change was the main reason for me to upgrade to 2.5.4

Maybe a configuration option or a "display attachment" button would be the
best solution, then?

Cheerio,

Thomas

> [...]
> > Probably it is fine to display only files ending in '.txt' per default.
> > In addition a file that has more than say 1000 lines should probably 
> > also not be displayed (as default, optional OK).  
> 
> No, '.txt' would definitely not be enough for me. I'm using elog to log all
> administration of our network. In many cases, I simply attach a configuration
> file. All those files are plain ASCII and none of them end in '.txt' - and I
> would most definitely like them to be displayed inline like they are now. In
> fact, this change was the main reason for me to upgrade to 2.5.4
> 
> Maybe a configuration option or a "display attachment" button would be the
> best solution, then?
> 
> Cheerio,
> 
> Thomas

So to make everybody happy, it would probably be enough not to display inline any
*.ps file, is that right? Is there any other ASCII format, which should not be
displayed? PDF is binary, so it won't be displayed. What about long C files? Most
people want to see them. In the recent version there is the "Hide attachment"
link which can be clicked to not display an attachment inline. Mabe there should
be a "Hide default = 0|1" config option...

> > [...]
> > > Probably it is fine to display only files ending in '.txt' per default.
> > > In addition a file that has more than say 1000 lines should probably 
> > > also not be displayed (as default, optional OK).  
> > 
> > No, '.txt' would definitely not be enough for me. I'm using elog to log all
> > administration of our network. In many cases, I simply attach a configuration
> > file. All those files are plain ASCII and none of them end in '.txt' - and I
> > would most definitely like them to be displayed inline like they are now. In
> > fact, this change was the main reason for me to upgrade to 2.5.4
> > 
> > Maybe a configuration option or a "display attachment" button would be the
> > best solution, then?
> > 
> > Cheerio,
> > 
> > Thomas
> 
> So to make everybody happy, it would probably be enough not to display inline any
> *.ps file, is that right? 

I think there should be size limit.  Imagine a multi MB text file (whatever it is;
elogd.c is already more than 1/2 MB and is likely to increase due to your
excellent support).  A client on an ISDN line would have to wait
several minutes and during this time elogd is busy and no other client can connect
(correct?).  Of course, if somebody really wants to see this file then there is
nothing to be done, but likely someone is flipping throught the messages using
to arrows on top to find the right entry....
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.

But this should only influence ASCII files.  E.g. the behaviour for jpeg files
should not change, which is controlled by 'Hide default'.  Maybe a 'Display/Hide
defaut extension' option, where the extensions are listed that are to be displayed
is another idea, in addition to a 'Max Display ASCII inline size' option,
which can be set to zero to disable it altogether.

In any case, whatever you think is best.

Cheers, Heiko

> Is there any other ASCII format, which should not be
> displayed? PDF is binary, so it won't be displayed. What about long C files? Most
> people want to see them. In the recent version there is the "Hide attachment"
> link which can be clicked to not display an attachment inline. Mabe there should
> be a "Hide default = 0|1" config option...

> 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.

Hi,

We just recently upgraded from an older version of Elog to the latest and
greatest, 2.5.4-2.  Everything is workinly nicely, except the "Use Email
From" option does not seem to work as before.  We have the option set so
that all e-mail that is sent should be from a single address, but instead it
just ignores that address and uses the e-mail address of the user currently
logged in.   

I have this set in the global section of the elogd.cfg:

Use Email From = elog@****.com

Please let me know if this is the intended function or if it may possible be
a bug.

Thanks,
Chris

I g

When trying to stop elogd processes with the kill command
elogd exits only after access to the logbook.

It should exit immediately, maybe after some cleanup.

Noee. Here it works immediately.

Can you try with a fresh server from the distribution, with the example 
elogd.cfg, to see if there is any difference?

The killing is handled in the funciton ctrlc_handler(), which sets _abort = 
TRUE. This  is checked in line 16195, just after the select(), and the main 
loop is exited. The select finishes after one second, although I believe 
that the kill signal also terminates the select prematurely. The kill 
command and a Ctrl-C keystroke should work the same way, they both generate 
a SIGTERM or SIGINT signal.

> Noee. Here it works immediately.
> 
> Can you try with a fresh server from the distribution, with the example 
> elogd.cfg, to see if there is any difference?
> 
> The killing is handled in the funciton ctrlc_handler(), which sets _abort = 
> TRUE. This  is checked in line 16195, just after the select(), and the main 
> loop is exited. The select finishes after one second, although I believe 
> that the kill signal also terminates the select prematurely. The kill 
> command and a Ctrl-C keystroke should work the same way, they both generate 
> a SIGTERM or SIGINT signal.

elogd does not exit if there is an 'unprocessed' HUP.  So when you do 

kill -HUP <pid>
kill <pid> 

elogd will only exit after it was accessed.

> elogd does not exit if there is an 'unprocessed' HUP.  So when you do 
> 
> kill -HUP <pid>
> kill <pid> 
> 
> elogd will only exit after it was accessed.

Can you please tell me how to reproduce this problem?

Even if I do a

kill -HUP <pid>; kill <pid>

it works immediately when I start elogd manually in interactive mode (not as daemon).

> > elogd does not exit if there is an 'unprocessed' HUP.  So when you do 
> > 
> > kill -HUP <pid>
> > kill <pid> 
> > 
> > elogd will only exit after it was accessed.
> 
> Can you please tell me how to reproduce this problem?
> 
> Even if I do a
> 
> kill -HUP <pid>; kill <pid>
> 
> it works immediately when I start elogd manually in interactive mode (not as daemon).

Even though I can't test this right now, I assume you have to wait a little
so that elogd jumps out of the 'select()' statement between the kill
commands.  Try: 

kill -HUP <pid>; sleep 2; kill <pid>

(I think the 'select()' timeout was 1 second.?)

> kill -HUP <pid>; sleep 2; kill <pid>

Thanks, I could reproduce the problem. It had to do that a SIGHUP aborts the select()
command, which some listen socket marked, so that elogd goes into an accept() call, waiting
there indefinitely (or until a new browser request arrives). I fixed that. New version
under CVS.

Under 2.5.4-2 build1.460, when I edit the demo elogd.cfg the following happens:

- I start with
URL = http://cde-tx32-sds01.subdom.dom.com:8080/

- When I go to edit the global section of the config file, the *display* of
the string is changed to:
URL = <a
href="http://cde-tx32-sds01.subdom.dom.com:8080/">http://cde-tx32-sds01.subdom.dom.com:8080/</a>

- Saving this results in an error in that the rendered url is invalid.

Our current running version is 2.5.4-build1.413 and this behavior is not
evident.  I've looked through the diffs but could not identify the genesis
of this new behavior.

Thanks

This problem has been fixed in revision 1.462

> This problem has been fixed in revision 1.462

Thank you!