[scponly] subversion support

[Dimitri Papadopoulos-Orfanos]

Hi,

> Yes.  As mentioned in one of the e-mails you pointed out in the archive, this 
> is used for ssh+svn://... support.  *Both* are needed but need to be handled 
> separately.  In my case, I only need svn support but not svnserve support, as 
> the server is somewhere else and reached via https.  For cases when you are 
> allowing them to use svn+ssh, then svnserve is required and svn would not be 
> wanted.

Why support anything apart from svn+ssh? I mean, if you want to support 
http, why not use https as you do? And if you're using https, why tunnel 
through ssh? Anyway, I'm sure there's a reason, but the primary way to 
use Subversion with SSH is svn+ssh. So shouldn't svnserve be the default?

> Currently, there is no way to set a umask under scponly.  Perhaps there should 
> be?  I patched scponly for my institution, because I needed a umask identical 
> to yours.  This still allows certain clients to use permissions that we don't 
> want to see, but it works much better in most cases.
> 
> Perhaps this should be a configure time option?  I didn't expect most people 
> to need this functionality, so I hadn't considered it much more....

Yes, that would be a nice option. In the meantime, I just noticed the 
default umask is OK for us. We will just have to set permissions 
manually on a few top-level directories.

> Perhaps that answers some of your questions?

Sure, thank you for these answers.

Dimitri Papadopoulos