Demo Discussion
Forum Config Examples Contributions Vulnerabilities
  Discussion forum about ELOG, Page 259 of 807  Not logged in ELOG logo
ID Date Icon Author Author Email Category OS ELOG Version Subjectdown Text Attachments
  1140   Mon May 9 20:55:36 2005 Reply Stefan Rittstefan.ritt@psi.chQuestionLinux | Other2.5.9Re: Version of GCC to use?> 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
  
  1141   Mon May 9 20:58:11 2005 Agree Steve Jonessteve.jones@freescale.comQuestionLinux | Other2.5.9Re: Version of GCC to use?> > 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
  
  1142   Mon May 9 21:08:56 2005 Agree Steve Jonessteve.jones@freescale.comQuestionLinux | Other2.5.9Re: Version of GCC to use?> > > 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
  
  1143   Mon May 9 21:14:53 2005 Question Steve Jonessteve.jones@freescale.comQuestionLinux | Other2.5.9Re: Version of GCC to use?> > > > 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
  
  1144   Mon May 9 21:17:29 2005 Agree Stefan Rittstefan.ritt@psi.chQuestionLinux | Other2.5.9Re: 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).
  
  1145   Mon May 9 21:22:46 2005 Reply Stefan Rittstefan.ritt@psi.chQuestionLinux | Other2.5.9Re: 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/
  
  1146   Mon May 9 23:30:11 2005 Agree Steve Jonessteve.jones@freescale.comQuestionLinux | Other2.5.9Re: 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/
  
  68098   Thu Aug 20 14:23:43 2015 Reply Edmund Hertleedmund.hertle@kit.eduInfoAll3.1.1Re: Version 3.1.1 of elog has been releasedThere seems to be a small problem with
the new "Date/Time format <attribute>"
implementation. It works great for the detailed
  
ELOG V3.1.5-3fb85fa6