As per the description in the README file for mod_dav_acl (http://sourceforge.net/projects/moddavacl/) a patch is required to apache in order to be able to to build mod_dav_acl. I dislike this as much as the next guy, but there you have it, from the readme file: -requires patches to Apache, mostly to mod_dav module, patch(es) included. Patch contains strong ETag handling, usec timestamps to ETags (libapr-patch), conditional PUTs (fixed after 2.2.8) and some hooks to allow integration of ACL handlings. Apply the patch to Apache sources and compile it before using this module. Also a patch to apr library (latest apr does have usec timestamps) is required to enable nano (actually u) second timestamps in resources. Patch included, but it is optional (etags aren'tjust that strong without it) although you can add both inode and size directives to etags. Reproducible: Always
Created attachment 292421 [details, diff] httpd-2.2.8-ju.patch patch file as provided by mod_dav_acl. It applies cleanly against www-servers/apache-2.2.21-r1, albeit with a few lines of offset.
httpd-2.2.16-ju.patch provided by mod_dav_acl 0.2.0 still applies cleanly (some offset) to Apache 2.2.23. Could we add this to Apache ebuild + a useflag (eg: "patched-acl") ? Then the mod_dav_acl ebuild could depend on this, be pushed so that bug #390445 (and soon after #390815) are solved ?
Is this module still used for apache-2.4? In that case, is the patch still needed with that version?
Hi, I'm actually unsure. I've not been able to get mod_dav_acl or mod_caldav up and running on apache 2.4 yet, but I've also started migrating most of my systems to 2.4 now and it is getting very high on my priority list. For now I'll "take" this issue to revert with feedback at a later stage. To whom may I re-assign back once I've got the feedback? Kind Regards, Jaco
this should probably be closed as OBSOLETE this days :/
