> > > elogd continues to run after a SIGHUP. If a second SIGHUP is received the daemon terminates.
> > > This was observed on Solaris 10 (SPARC).
> > > The documentation states that elogd should re-read configuration after receiving SIGHUP.
> > 
> > I tried to reproduce this but without success. I could send many SIGHUPs without the daemon terminating. Maybe 
> > you modified the configuration file in between and elogd barked out because of some wrong configuration? Try to 
> > start the daemon interactively and see what exactly happens if you send several SIGHUPs.
> 
> The problem is that under Solaris signal handlers installed via signal() get uninstalled *before* the signal handler
> is called.  Thus the second time elogd receives a SIGHUP, you get the default action, which is to kill the process.
> 
> The solution is to use the POSIX sigaction() call instead of signal(). 

Can you try to modify the signal() calls into sigaction(). If this really works under Solaris, I will incorporate this 
then into the distribution.

> > elogd continues to run after a SIGHUP. If a second SIGHUP is received the daemon terminates.
> > This was observed on Solaris 10 (SPARC).
> > The documentation states that elogd should re-read configuration after receiving SIGHUP.
> 
> I tried to reproduce this but without success. I could send many SIGHUPs without the daemon terminating. Maybe 
> you modified the configuration file in between and elogd barked out because of some wrong configuration? Try to 
> start the daemon interactively and see what exactly happens if you send several SIGHUPs.

The problem is that under Solaris signal handlers installed via signal() get uninstalled *before* the signal handler
is called.  Thus the second time elogd receives a SIGHUP, you get the default action, which is to kill the process.

The solution is to use the POSIX sigaction() call instead of signal(). 

I couldn't find an obvious solution to the problem. I'd like to suppress email

notification to the author of a message. I've had some people complaining

that when they use elog they don't want to get an email about what they wrote

since they wrote it.

Is it possible?

Regards,

Mike

 Thanks Stefan

This was probably a buggy bug report. Was just testing things out on a local machine and cookies were send to the local machine. so the mail was using these cookies also.

In Practice this could never happen. 

Hi

The problem is not exactly what I thought, but I did track it down. Here is a logbook definition that reliably creates a segmentation fault in e-log. This logbook's only useful purpose is in fact to create a segmentation fault:

You select "New", then "Select", without entering anything.

--------------

Login user = Admin

Attributes = Link

Change Link = <a href="https://$Link"">$Link</a>

---------------

I would be able to create some more debugging information of course, if needed.
 

Regards

Soren

This is not a bug, this is a feature! Once you log in to ELOG, your credentials are stored in cookies of your local browser. If you access a logbook entry, like via the link you in your email, you still use that credentials. If you clear all cookies of your browser, or log out explicitly from ELOG, then of course you will only get guest access. 

It would be best if I could reproduce your problem. So can you start from a very simple configuration file, add your constraints until the problme happens, and then send me the config file? 

Hi

I am having a little problem with e-log that I can easily reproduce.

I have defined a number of constraints on my e-log fields and I am testing what happens when the user does not respect them.

So this only happens when I am not observing the input formats or the mandatory fields.

This is the GDB trace. This is not very verbose, so I must learn to use the other tracers, I guess.

Soren