On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 15:10, Tech Geek <techgeek12...@gmail.com> wrote: >>The other way you could do this, if you insist upon PartA & PartB being >> separate repositories, is to have a different <Location> >block for each >> project, and specify SVNParentPath as /var/lib/svn/ProjectB . Then you could >> have PartA & PartB set up as separate >repositories - albeit with a lot more >> management overhead as you add projects/repositories, and potentially more >> confusion. > > You mean something like this? > <Location "/svn"> > DAV svn > SVNParentPath /var/lib/svn/projectA > SVNListParentPath On > AuthBasicProvider ldap > AuthType Basic > AuthzLDAPAuthoritative off > AuthName "Subversion Repositories" > ...... > ...... > require valid-user > </Location> > > <Location "/svn"> > DAV svn > SVNParentPath /var/lib/svn/projectB > SVNListParentPath On > AuthBasicProvider ldap > AuthType Basic > AuthzLDAPAuthoritative off > AuthName "Subversion Repositories" > ...... > ...... > require valid-user > </Location>
No, you would need <Location "/svnA"> <Location"/svnB"> > Would be nice if someone already has a script (that excepts the name of the > repository) that does the job of entering the <Locaiton> block in the apache > configuration file. > > Also why svn does not support nesting paths (logical empty folder) under > repository location. I am sure many people might have encountered simialar > issues especially if they have existing projects before they started using > subversion. I think you're getting confused about the relationships between "projects" and repositories, and introducing many more layers than needed. As I asked earlier, why must PartA & PartB in a given project be separate repositories? Why is the more conventional approach not workable for you?