| Weekly edition | Kernel | Security | Distributions | Search |
| Archives | Calendar | Subscribe | Write for LWN | LWN.net FAQ |
Arch for CVS Users (Linux Journal)
Arch for CVS Users (Linux Journal)
Posted Jun 3, 2004 6:41 UTC (Thu) by mbp (guest, #2737)In reply to: Arch for CVS Users (Linux Journal) by iabervon
Parent article: Arch for CVS Users (Linux Journal)
> So if you have a CVS repository whose commit access
> is handled with g+ws and a group, you can't do the
> obvious switch.
Yes you can. It works fine. Why are jaberbon and piman repeatedly insisting on this page that it doesn't work when it plainly does? Did you even try it?
OK, it's possible there's soemthing wierd on your machine, or you're hitting an arch bug, or Nick's instructions were less than perfectly clear. Leaving that aside, it works fine: if you have a shared writable directory, you can have a shared writable archive. Easy.
In fact, even less is often needed than what Nick says. Many (most?) Linux machines have a umask of 002 by default and per-user groups. If you have this and you just chmod g+swx the directory, you're done.
This is exactly the same issue that regularly fouls Subversion repos too.
(Log in to post comments)
Arch for CVS Users (Linux Journal)
Posted Jun 3, 2004 6:47 UTC (Thu) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link]
I never said that wasn't sufficient; I'm just trying to dispel dmarti's myth that Arch requires zero server-side setup. I consider creating a reasonable SSH policy server-side setup; in addition, see my last comment on what just plain doesn't work with SSH-only access (let alone zero-setup access).
Arch for CVS Users (Linux Journal)
Posted Jun 5, 2004 4:26 UTC (Sat) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link]
I missed the part of the article which explained how to set up sftp tohave a non-default umask, but that's what I described in my third
paragraph: some way to have sftp change the umask. Unlike CVS, arch
doesn't handle g+s itself, but does something useless and mysterious in
this case (you have a shared writing archive, but users steal the lock
when they commit). The article also doesn't mention how you deal with
local access to the repository or NFS access to the repository, the first
of which I'm using, and the second of which (with CVS) I used at a
previous company. I haven't tried Subversion to see what it does.
The default umask on Debian (which is what we're using on the relevant
systems) is 0022, so there are plenty of systems with this configuration.