> but with the proper group permissions should be ok, right? yes - but I didn't see the value in letting it continue. If you're allowed to update the cache you better have superuser value. > so it was kind of shortcut instead of full-blown permissions check? Not to be > pita, but just out of curiosity I wonder if that's going to change since this > is not the most elegant solution (we have more than one admin downloading > packages) maybe it's worth another option in config: check for 'root' or > check for group? If you have more than one admin downloading packages at the same time things will break. I don't think letting the average user update the cache just b/c they're a member of a group is necessarily a good idea. -sv
