e.huelsmann@gmx.net wrote:
> Tobias,
>
> I'm a nobody too. We were definitely not discussion messing with
> permissions. We were discussing where and how to throw an understandable error message
> or to leave it to berkeley to display any error (not permission denied btw).
>
> Greg Hudson, Mark and I advocated checking conditions so as to be sure that
> if any db errors occur, that they are not due to inaccessability of the
> database by berkeley. John said "there's nothing wrong with BDB and nothing with
> our use of it, so we should do nothing. It's the users fault". (Ofcourse this
> is what I understood their comments to be.)
>
> So I think we agree to the solution we are currently persuing?
OK, I've tried to read up on the whole conversation. I'm tired and
stupid so I may have misuderstood it all, but here goes nothing:
The current code will print a "permission denied" error message if BDB
fails because of a permission problem. When this happens, the admin must
fix the problem by hand. There will not be any confusion because the
error message is clear. It it not clear enough, it would be a fiveliner
to add an URL to the FAQ in the error message.
The holy grail would of course be to prevent a user with a bad umask
(for example) to wedge the repos for all the other users. Doing so would
definately involve messing with permissions, and it would be hard to get
it right, IMHO.
Is it possible that you are trying to solve an old problem? Just a short
time ago neither ra_dav, ra_svn nor ra_local did manage to present a
"permission denied" error message to the user, but now they do.
So I'm just wondering if this is still a problem? Do you have an example
where you get a different error than "permission denied" when it really
is a perssion problem?
/Tobias, nobody, tired and stupid :-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Sep 5 23:44:13 2003