Subject: Re: shuffling subversion pkgs
To: Hubert Feyrer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Mike M. Volokhov <email@example.com>
Date: 03/09/2004 14:39:56
On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 13:03:46 +0100 (CET)
Hubert Feyrer <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2004, Mike M. Volokhov wrote:
> > minimal (?) and basic functionality of SVN. The "recommended" SVN's
> > server is an Apache/WebDAV, thus installing Subversion you should be
> > ready to Apache installation, isn't it?
> IMHO, no.
> I'm only starting to play with SVN, but it seems the Apache setup is not
> the only way to access the repository via network. Instead (and from my
> POV preferred) doing it like cvs via ssh and a 'svn server'-like thing is
> possible, esp. with only the subversion-base command.
> The WebDAV stuff is nice and probably recommended for browser integration
> and high end tools, but it's probably ways overkill for what we'd use in
> NetBSD. Think about it: 1 server, 300 developers - why install Apache 299
> times w/o need? Sounds like a big security and maintenance issue to me.
In this case, them should all install subversion-base :-)
You see, IMHO the "subversion-server" is a less correct naming for a
currently named "subversion" package, than current "subversion-base" for
"subversion". Thus, to not intrude into religious war, I have no problem
with last. But I still think, that first is incorrect.
Altough SVN team referred to WebDAV server here and there all time, they
are also said that there is no any official SVN server.