> > > > ... my staff client won't connect to my > > server (although a web browser will), presumably because there are no > > libraries defined to connect to. I'm assuming that Evergreen comes with a > > skeleton structure with commonly used tables already defined. Can you > give > > me any pointers? > > It would help if you provided more specific information about what > problem or error message you get when you try to connect from the > staff client.
Thanks. I've tried again and realised that the problem is with the security certificate. The installation instruction says that I can ignore warnings about this when trying to connect, but it seems that the error halts the process. I enter the server name 192.168.0.5 (the same address on my local network that will bring up an Evergreen home page titled "Now searching example consortium" in my web browser) and see a warning that the the secure connection failed, that the certificate is self-signed and only valid for John H.The only options are "View Certificate" and "Cancel". If I dismiss this dialogue and enter "evergreen" in the Username box under authentication with the password I have recently set, the Login button remains greyed out. As this is just a test setup, buying a certificate is not viable. Should I go back and check and repeat the instructions following "openssl req -new -x509 -days 365 -nodes -out server.crt -keyout server.key"? I'm grateful for the help I'm getting. Best wishes > From almost any Evergreen web page, try clicking > "Documentation -> Evergreen 1.6 (HTML) -> Core Staff Tasks"; this will > tell you how to connect using the staff client and perform many other > functions such as adding bibliographic records, volumes, and copies. > This information is not yet in the 2.0 documentation. > > Changing library names from the default setup (the recommended > approach, at least for those getting started) is a little less > obvious, in the 1.6 documentation it's under "Server Administration -> > Organizational Unit Types and Organizational Units". This information > is also not yet in the 2.0 documentation - and it might make sense to > have at least an index entry for "Library (see Organizational Unit)" > as the terminology is a little unusual. > -- John Hudson [email protected]
