The upgrade was done by just replacing elogd from 2.5.2 to 2.5.4 from the rpm.

Somehow elogd 2.5.4 treat all users as normal user. When clicking on
"config". All admin users has no "change elogd.cfg" button. Revert back to
2.5.2 OK.

Is there anything I need to change to upgrade other than replaceing elogd?
Clearing the cookies didn't help.

Thanks,
.nait.

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

> > Just for grins, what version of compiler are you using under Linux?
> 
> gcc 3.2.2 (from RedHat Linux 9.0)

Well, I am running 2.95.3 - hmmm.  We have 3.3.2 - perhaps I'll try that and
see if there is a difference.

> > Thank you.  I had added the "Move To" and this works at the log entry
> level (i.e., "Move
> > To <name>) but in the threaded view one does not get the enumerated list
> of logbooks.
> 
> You get the "Move To" button only after pressing "Select", otherwise it does
> not make sense. See attached screendump and config example.

Hmmm.  I like the little buttons with the pull-downs for selections. 
Unfortunately, I don't get that.  With a config of:

Find Menu commands = New, Find, Select, Config, Change password, Logout, Help, Admin
Menu commands = Back, New, Edit, Delete, Reply, Find, Move To, Copy To, Config, Help

my screen only shows the "toggle" and "delete" buttons.  Was there a recent rev
that allowed this to happen (I didn't see a comment on this).  

BTW, on a log entry screen, is the appropriate behavior for the "Move To" option
to show multiple "Move To" links (one for each logbook) or should there also be
pulldowns?  

Thanks

> > 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!

> Just for grins, what version of compiler are you using under Linux?

gcc 3.2.2 (from RedHat Linux 9.0)

> Thank you.  I had added the "Move To" and this works at the log entry
level (i.e., "Move
> To <name>) but in the threaded view one does not get the enumerated list
of logbooks.

You get the "Move To" button only after pressing "Select", otherwise it does
not make sense. See attached screendump and config example.

> > I'm not sure if this is a configuration problem or a bug, but running
> > v2.5.4subver1.413, elogd runs as user ROOT (UID0) even though the following
> > is in the elogd.cfd file:
> > 
> > Usr = nobody
> > Grp = essadm
> > 
> > All other directives added to the cfg file work, so I know eLog is reading
> > the cfg file.  
> > 
> > The elogd binary *is not* setuid 0.
> 
> I could not reproduce your problem with the current version (Revision 1.460)
> under Linux. I guess you made sure that user "nobody" and group "essadm" exist.
> Try to run elogd interactively, if you see any error message (without "-D"
> flag). In the most recent version (1.460), I added some more debugging code
> which tells you if elogd successfully fell back to another user, if you use the
> "-v" (verbose) flag.
> 
> If all that does not help, I guess it's some peculiarity of Solaris. Maybe
> someone else using Solaris has some idea. All elogd does is a call to 
> 
> setuser("<user>");
> 
> I see no reason why this should not work on Solaris.

Ok, just checking.  I will fiddle around with running it interactively and see what
I get, plus I'll have a look at the setuser function under Solaris.

Just for grins, what version of compiler are you using under Linux?

Thanks again!