Ok, I tried updating my SVN working copy, but I didn't get any updates past elog rev. 2494, mxml rev. 74.  I undid my changes to Makefile, tried to compile, but got the same errors.  

I then pulled down elog and mxml with git, and these are working for me with no errors.  Thanks!

SVN is obsolete and will NOT be maintained any more, since we completely switched to GIT. Actually I will disable the service soon. 

 I too am having issues installing on Mac OS X 10.9.1. I changed CFLAGS in makefile to;

CFLAGS += -O3 -funroll-loops -fomit-frame-pointer -W -Wall -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=0

I get many lines of errors like this when I run make;

/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Platforms/MacOSX.platform/Developer/SDKs/MacOSX10.9.sdk/usr/include/openssl/ssl.h:1491:6: note: 'SSL_accept' declared here

int     SSL_accept(SSL *ssl) DEPRECATED_IN_MAC_OS_X_VERSION_10_7_AND_LATER;

        ^

src/elogd.c:28809:19: warning: 'SSL_set_fd' is deprecated: first deprecated in OS X 10.7 [-Wdeprecated-declarations]

                  SSL_set_fd(ka_ssl_con[i_min], ka_sock[i_min]);

                  ^

If you would use the Makefile from the GIT repository there would be no errors under OS X 10.9.1:

/elog$ make                                                                                                                                                                 
cc -O3 -funroll-loops -fomit-frame-pointer -W -Wall -Wno-deprecated-declarations -I../mxml  -DHAVE_SSL -w -c -o crypt.o src/crypt.c                                         
cc -O3 -funroll-loops -fomit-frame-pointer -W -Wall -Wno-deprecated-declarations -I../mxml  -DHAVE_SSL -o elog src/elog.c crypt.o -lssl                                     
cc -O3 -funroll-loops -fomit-frame-pointer -W -Wall -Wno-deprecated-declarations -I../mxml  -DHAVE_SSL -w -c -o regex.o src/regex.c                                         
cc -O3 -funroll-loops -fomit-frame-pointer -W -Wall -Wno-deprecated-declarations -I../mxml  -DHAVE_SSL -w -c -o auth.o src/auth.c                                           
cc -O3 -funroll-loops -fomit-frame-pointer -W -Wall -Wno-deprecated-declarations -I../mxml  -DHAVE_SSL -c -o mxml.o ../mxml/mxml.c                                          
cc -O3 -funroll-loops -fomit-frame-pointer -W -Wall -Wno-deprecated-declarations -I../mxml  -DHAVE_SSL -c -o strlcpy.o ../mxml/strlcpy.c                                    
cc -O3 -funroll-loops -fomit-frame-pointer -W -Wall -Wno-deprecated-declarations -I../mxml  -DHAVE_SSL -o elogd src/elogd.c crypt.o auth.o regex.o mxml.o strlcpy.o -lssl   
cc -O3 -funroll-loops -fomit-frame-pointer -W -Wall -Wno-deprecated-declarations -I../mxml  -DHAVE_SSL -o elconv src/elconv.c -lssl                                         
/elog$                                                                                                                                                                      

Actually what you need is -Wno-deprecated-declarations to suppress the warnings. The open SSL functions will at some point be removed from OSX, they have their own implementation of SSL. So then we either have to ship openSSL together with elog or use Apple's implementatoin. But for now we are still fine.

/Stefan

I've just noticed that it has also sorted another Option, which are selected as radio buttons.  Again, this is a
list which has a natural - again, in this case, chronological - order.

Because of this, I'm going to have to turn off this feature as it is on my system.  I hope something can be sorted
on this.


> (For some reason I could not add this in Dennis's thread.)
> 
> I like this new feature, BUT
> 
> I happen to have two Options:   Options System, and Options Status.
> 
> System are a very few items, whereas Status has a long list, which, like Dennis's example, can be added to. 
> Keeping the latter in alpha order is great, but it's a shame that the cost is that Options System are also
> sorted alphabetically, whereas it has a natural order which it would be preferable to keep - for example (and
> this is made up)
> 
> Options System: 3.1, NT, 2000, XP, Vista
> 
> where the natural order here is chronological.
> 
> Perhaps the configuration file option could be more specific, for example
> 
> Sort attribute Options Status = 1
> 
> which would then NOT sort Options System.  If both are needed to be sorted, both should be specified, or back to
> the original syntax which defaults to sort *all* Options.

Ok, that makes sense, so I changed it to

Sort Attribute Options Status = 1

as you suggested.

> (For some reason I could not add this in Dennis's thread.)
> 
> I like this new feature, BUT
> 
> I happen to have two Options:   Options System, and Options Status.
> 
> System are a very few items, whereas Status has a long list, which, like Dennis's example, can be added to. 
> Keeping the latter in alpha order is great, but it's a shame that the cost is that Options System are also
> sorted alphabetically, whereas it has a natural order which it would be preferable to keep - for example (and
> this is made up)
> 
> Options System: 3.1, NT, 2000, XP, Vista
> 
> where the natural order here is chronological.
> 
> Perhaps the configuration file option could be more specific, for example
> 
> Sort attribute Options Status = 1
> 
> which would then NOT sort Options System.  If both are needed to be sorted, both should be specified, or back to
> the original syntax which defaults to sort *all* Options.

Thanks Stefan!  Works great.

> Ok, that makes sense, so I changed it to
> 
> Sort Attribute Options Status = 1
> 
> as you suggested.
> 
> > (For some reason I could not add this in Dennis's thread.)
> > 
> > I like this new feature, BUT
> > 
> > I happen to have two Options:   Options System, and Options Status.
> > 
> > System are a very few items, whereas Status has a long list, which, like Dennis's example, can be added to. 
> > Keeping the latter in alpha order is great, but it's a shame that the cost is that Options System are also
> > sorted alphabetically, whereas it has a natural order which it would be preferable to keep - for example (and
> > this is made up)
> > 
> > Options System: 3.1, NT, 2000, XP, Vista
> > 
> > where the natural order here is chronological.
> > 
> > Perhaps the configuration file option could be more specific, for example
> > 
> > Sort attribute Options Status = 1
> > 
> > which would then NOT sort Options System.  If both are needed to be sorted, both should be specified, or back to
> > the original syntax which defaults to sort *all* Options.