May I sort the /etc/group and /etc/passwd files?
My /etc/group
has grown by adding new users as well as installing programs that have added their own user and/or group. The same is true for /etc/passwd
. Editing has now become a little cumbersome due to the lack of structure.
May I sort these files (e.g. by numerical id or alphabetical by name) without negative effect on the system and/or package managers?
I would guess that is does not matter but just to be sure I would like to get a 2nd opinion. Maybe root
needs to be the 1st line or within the first 1k lines or something?
The same goes for /etc/*shadow
.
group passwd
add a comment |
My /etc/group
has grown by adding new users as well as installing programs that have added their own user and/or group. The same is true for /etc/passwd
. Editing has now become a little cumbersome due to the lack of structure.
May I sort these files (e.g. by numerical id or alphabetical by name) without negative effect on the system and/or package managers?
I would guess that is does not matter but just to be sure I would like to get a 2nd opinion. Maybe root
needs to be the 1st line or within the first 1k lines or something?
The same goes for /etc/*shadow
.
group passwd
7
"Editing has now become a little cumbersome due to the lack of structure" Why are you editing those files by hand?
– Kevin
Feb 19 '18 at 23:50
How does sorting the file help with editing? Is it because you want to group related accounts together, and then do similar changes in a range of rows? But will related account be adjacent if you sort by uid or name?
– Barmar
Feb 21 '18 at 20:51
@Barmar It has helped mainly because user accounts are grouped by ranges and separate from system accounts (when sorting by UID). Therefore it is easier e.g. to spot the correct line to examine or change when editing withvi
.
– Ned64
Mar 13 '18 at 23:15
add a comment |
My /etc/group
has grown by adding new users as well as installing programs that have added their own user and/or group. The same is true for /etc/passwd
. Editing has now become a little cumbersome due to the lack of structure.
May I sort these files (e.g. by numerical id or alphabetical by name) without negative effect on the system and/or package managers?
I would guess that is does not matter but just to be sure I would like to get a 2nd opinion. Maybe root
needs to be the 1st line or within the first 1k lines or something?
The same goes for /etc/*shadow
.
group passwd
My /etc/group
has grown by adding new users as well as installing programs that have added their own user and/or group. The same is true for /etc/passwd
. Editing has now become a little cumbersome due to the lack of structure.
May I sort these files (e.g. by numerical id or alphabetical by name) without negative effect on the system and/or package managers?
I would guess that is does not matter but just to be sure I would like to get a 2nd opinion. Maybe root
needs to be the 1st line or within the first 1k lines or something?
The same goes for /etc/*shadow
.
group passwd
group passwd
asked Feb 18 '18 at 13:52
Ned64Ned64
2,61411335
2,61411335
7
"Editing has now become a little cumbersome due to the lack of structure" Why are you editing those files by hand?
– Kevin
Feb 19 '18 at 23:50
How does sorting the file help with editing? Is it because you want to group related accounts together, and then do similar changes in a range of rows? But will related account be adjacent if you sort by uid or name?
– Barmar
Feb 21 '18 at 20:51
@Barmar It has helped mainly because user accounts are grouped by ranges and separate from system accounts (when sorting by UID). Therefore it is easier e.g. to spot the correct line to examine or change when editing withvi
.
– Ned64
Mar 13 '18 at 23:15
add a comment |
7
"Editing has now become a little cumbersome due to the lack of structure" Why are you editing those files by hand?
– Kevin
Feb 19 '18 at 23:50
How does sorting the file help with editing? Is it because you want to group related accounts together, and then do similar changes in a range of rows? But will related account be adjacent if you sort by uid or name?
– Barmar
Feb 21 '18 at 20:51
@Barmar It has helped mainly because user accounts are grouped by ranges and separate from system accounts (when sorting by UID). Therefore it is easier e.g. to spot the correct line to examine or change when editing withvi
.
– Ned64
Mar 13 '18 at 23:15
7
7
"Editing has now become a little cumbersome due to the lack of structure" Why are you editing those files by hand?
– Kevin
Feb 19 '18 at 23:50
"Editing has now become a little cumbersome due to the lack of structure" Why are you editing those files by hand?
– Kevin
Feb 19 '18 at 23:50
How does sorting the file help with editing? Is it because you want to group related accounts together, and then do similar changes in a range of rows? But will related account be adjacent if you sort by uid or name?
– Barmar
Feb 21 '18 at 20:51
How does sorting the file help with editing? Is it because you want to group related accounts together, and then do similar changes in a range of rows? But will related account be adjacent if you sort by uid or name?
– Barmar
Feb 21 '18 at 20:51
@Barmar It has helped mainly because user accounts are grouped by ranges and separate from system accounts (when sorting by UID). Therefore it is easier e.g. to spot the correct line to examine or change when editing with
vi
.– Ned64
Mar 13 '18 at 23:15
@Barmar It has helped mainly because user accounts are grouped by ranges and separate from system accounts (when sorting by UID). Therefore it is easier e.g. to spot the correct line to examine or change when editing with
vi
.– Ned64
Mar 13 '18 at 23:15
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
You should be OK doing this: in fact, according to the article and reading the documentation, you can sort /etc/passwd
and /etc/group
by UID/GID with pwck -s
and grpck -s
, respectively.
3
@Menasheh This site's colours don't make them stand out as much as on other sites, but "OK doing this" in this answer is a hyperlink.
– hvd
Feb 18 '18 at 22:59
2
OK, fine, but... In general, are there valid reasons to manually edit /etc/passwd and similar files? Isn't it considered better to access these via the tools that are designed to create and modify them?
– mickeyf
Feb 19 '18 at 14:05
@mickeyf I've seen people manually edit/etc/passwd
when they're making batch changes, like changing the GECOS field for all users due to moving/restructuring (global room or phone number changes, etc.) It's not common anymore, but there are specific reasons that crop up from time to time.
– ErikF
Feb 20 '18 at 21:21
add a comment |
Although ErikF is correct that this should generally be okay, I do want to point out one potential issue:
You're allowed to map different usernames to the same UID. If you make use of this, tools that map a UID back to a username will generally pick the first username they find for that UID in /etc/passwd
. Sorting may cause a different username to appear first. For display purposes (e.g. ls -l
output), either username should work, but it's possible that you've configured some program to accept requests from username A, where it will deny those requests if it sees them coming from username B, even if A and B are the same user.
add a comment |
Having root at first line has been a long time de facto "standard" and is very convenient if you ever have to fix their shell or delete the password, when dealing with problems or recovering systems.
Likewise I prefer to have daemons/utils users in the middle and standard users at the end of both passwd
and shadow
.
hvd
answer is also very good about disturbing the users order, especially in systems with many users maintained by hand.
If you somewhat manage to sort the files, for instance, only for standard users, it would be more sensible than changing the order of all users, imo.
1
If you sort numerically by UID, you should get your preferred order. Root is always0
, and daemons conventionally have UIDs under 100.
– Barmar
Feb 21 '18 at 20:13
@Barmar If sorting by UID and not by name, indeed, thanks for remembering.
– Rui F Ribeiro
Feb 21 '18 at 20:16
add a comment |
Here is a bit of somewhat hairy bash code to similarly sort the shadow/gshadow files safely (using vipw -s
/vigr -s
) and in-place from the command line:
EDITOR="/usr/bin/vi -c "1,\$!awk 'BEGIN {FS = \":\"} FNR==NR {x2[\$1] = \$0; next} \$1 in x2 {print x2 [\$1]}' - /etc/passwd ^V^J
:wq" >/dev/null 2>&1" vipw -s
EDITOR="/usr/bin/vi -c "1,\$!awk 'BEGIN {FS = \":\"} FNR==NR {x2[\$1] = \$0; next} \$1 in x2 {print x2 [\$1]}' - /etc/group ^V^J
:wq" >/dev/null 2>&1" vigr -s
NOTE:
^V^J
is CtrlVCtrlJ which generates a new line - this new line is needed to separate the vim command lines.
vi -c
passes the command to the vim editor which is assigned to be the editor forvipw
/vigr
by theEDITOR
variable- The awk code sorts
shadow
bypasswd
(andgshadow
bygroup
) - The backslashes are just the multiple levels of escape needed corresponding to the quotation levels.
New contributor
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f424967%2fmay-i-sort-the-etc-group-and-etc-passwd-files%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
You should be OK doing this: in fact, according to the article and reading the documentation, you can sort /etc/passwd
and /etc/group
by UID/GID with pwck -s
and grpck -s
, respectively.
3
@Menasheh This site's colours don't make them stand out as much as on other sites, but "OK doing this" in this answer is a hyperlink.
– hvd
Feb 18 '18 at 22:59
2
OK, fine, but... In general, are there valid reasons to manually edit /etc/passwd and similar files? Isn't it considered better to access these via the tools that are designed to create and modify them?
– mickeyf
Feb 19 '18 at 14:05
@mickeyf I've seen people manually edit/etc/passwd
when they're making batch changes, like changing the GECOS field for all users due to moving/restructuring (global room or phone number changes, etc.) It's not common anymore, but there are specific reasons that crop up from time to time.
– ErikF
Feb 20 '18 at 21:21
add a comment |
You should be OK doing this: in fact, according to the article and reading the documentation, you can sort /etc/passwd
and /etc/group
by UID/GID with pwck -s
and grpck -s
, respectively.
3
@Menasheh This site's colours don't make them stand out as much as on other sites, but "OK doing this" in this answer is a hyperlink.
– hvd
Feb 18 '18 at 22:59
2
OK, fine, but... In general, are there valid reasons to manually edit /etc/passwd and similar files? Isn't it considered better to access these via the tools that are designed to create and modify them?
– mickeyf
Feb 19 '18 at 14:05
@mickeyf I've seen people manually edit/etc/passwd
when they're making batch changes, like changing the GECOS field for all users due to moving/restructuring (global room or phone number changes, etc.) It's not common anymore, but there are specific reasons that crop up from time to time.
– ErikF
Feb 20 '18 at 21:21
add a comment |
You should be OK doing this: in fact, according to the article and reading the documentation, you can sort /etc/passwd
and /etc/group
by UID/GID with pwck -s
and grpck -s
, respectively.
You should be OK doing this: in fact, according to the article and reading the documentation, you can sort /etc/passwd
and /etc/group
by UID/GID with pwck -s
and grpck -s
, respectively.
answered Feb 18 '18 at 14:12
ErikFErikF
2,9111513
2,9111513
3
@Menasheh This site's colours don't make them stand out as much as on other sites, but "OK doing this" in this answer is a hyperlink.
– hvd
Feb 18 '18 at 22:59
2
OK, fine, but... In general, are there valid reasons to manually edit /etc/passwd and similar files? Isn't it considered better to access these via the tools that are designed to create and modify them?
– mickeyf
Feb 19 '18 at 14:05
@mickeyf I've seen people manually edit/etc/passwd
when they're making batch changes, like changing the GECOS field for all users due to moving/restructuring (global room or phone number changes, etc.) It's not common anymore, but there are specific reasons that crop up from time to time.
– ErikF
Feb 20 '18 at 21:21
add a comment |
3
@Menasheh This site's colours don't make them stand out as much as on other sites, but "OK doing this" in this answer is a hyperlink.
– hvd
Feb 18 '18 at 22:59
2
OK, fine, but... In general, are there valid reasons to manually edit /etc/passwd and similar files? Isn't it considered better to access these via the tools that are designed to create and modify them?
– mickeyf
Feb 19 '18 at 14:05
@mickeyf I've seen people manually edit/etc/passwd
when they're making batch changes, like changing the GECOS field for all users due to moving/restructuring (global room or phone number changes, etc.) It's not common anymore, but there are specific reasons that crop up from time to time.
– ErikF
Feb 20 '18 at 21:21
3
3
@Menasheh This site's colours don't make them stand out as much as on other sites, but "OK doing this" in this answer is a hyperlink.
– hvd
Feb 18 '18 at 22:59
@Menasheh This site's colours don't make them stand out as much as on other sites, but "OK doing this" in this answer is a hyperlink.
– hvd
Feb 18 '18 at 22:59
2
2
OK, fine, but... In general, are there valid reasons to manually edit /etc/passwd and similar files? Isn't it considered better to access these via the tools that are designed to create and modify them?
– mickeyf
Feb 19 '18 at 14:05
OK, fine, but... In general, are there valid reasons to manually edit /etc/passwd and similar files? Isn't it considered better to access these via the tools that are designed to create and modify them?
– mickeyf
Feb 19 '18 at 14:05
@mickeyf I've seen people manually edit
/etc/passwd
when they're making batch changes, like changing the GECOS field for all users due to moving/restructuring (global room or phone number changes, etc.) It's not common anymore, but there are specific reasons that crop up from time to time.– ErikF
Feb 20 '18 at 21:21
@mickeyf I've seen people manually edit
/etc/passwd
when they're making batch changes, like changing the GECOS field for all users due to moving/restructuring (global room or phone number changes, etc.) It's not common anymore, but there are specific reasons that crop up from time to time.– ErikF
Feb 20 '18 at 21:21
add a comment |
Although ErikF is correct that this should generally be okay, I do want to point out one potential issue:
You're allowed to map different usernames to the same UID. If you make use of this, tools that map a UID back to a username will generally pick the first username they find for that UID in /etc/passwd
. Sorting may cause a different username to appear first. For display purposes (e.g. ls -l
output), either username should work, but it's possible that you've configured some program to accept requests from username A, where it will deny those requests if it sees them coming from username B, even if A and B are the same user.
add a comment |
Although ErikF is correct that this should generally be okay, I do want to point out one potential issue:
You're allowed to map different usernames to the same UID. If you make use of this, tools that map a UID back to a username will generally pick the first username they find for that UID in /etc/passwd
. Sorting may cause a different username to appear first. For display purposes (e.g. ls -l
output), either username should work, but it's possible that you've configured some program to accept requests from username A, where it will deny those requests if it sees them coming from username B, even if A and B are the same user.
add a comment |
Although ErikF is correct that this should generally be okay, I do want to point out one potential issue:
You're allowed to map different usernames to the same UID. If you make use of this, tools that map a UID back to a username will generally pick the first username they find for that UID in /etc/passwd
. Sorting may cause a different username to appear first. For display purposes (e.g. ls -l
output), either username should work, but it's possible that you've configured some program to accept requests from username A, where it will deny those requests if it sees them coming from username B, even if A and B are the same user.
Although ErikF is correct that this should generally be okay, I do want to point out one potential issue:
You're allowed to map different usernames to the same UID. If you make use of this, tools that map a UID back to a username will generally pick the first username they find for that UID in /etc/passwd
. Sorting may cause a different username to appear first. For display purposes (e.g. ls -l
output), either username should work, but it's possible that you've configured some program to accept requests from username A, where it will deny those requests if it sees them coming from username B, even if A and B are the same user.
answered Feb 18 '18 at 17:28
hvdhvd
1,410815
1,410815
add a comment |
add a comment |
Having root at first line has been a long time de facto "standard" and is very convenient if you ever have to fix their shell or delete the password, when dealing with problems or recovering systems.
Likewise I prefer to have daemons/utils users in the middle and standard users at the end of both passwd
and shadow
.
hvd
answer is also very good about disturbing the users order, especially in systems with many users maintained by hand.
If you somewhat manage to sort the files, for instance, only for standard users, it would be more sensible than changing the order of all users, imo.
1
If you sort numerically by UID, you should get your preferred order. Root is always0
, and daemons conventionally have UIDs under 100.
– Barmar
Feb 21 '18 at 20:13
@Barmar If sorting by UID and not by name, indeed, thanks for remembering.
– Rui F Ribeiro
Feb 21 '18 at 20:16
add a comment |
Having root at first line has been a long time de facto "standard" and is very convenient if you ever have to fix their shell or delete the password, when dealing with problems or recovering systems.
Likewise I prefer to have daemons/utils users in the middle and standard users at the end of both passwd
and shadow
.
hvd
answer is also very good about disturbing the users order, especially in systems with many users maintained by hand.
If you somewhat manage to sort the files, for instance, only for standard users, it would be more sensible than changing the order of all users, imo.
1
If you sort numerically by UID, you should get your preferred order. Root is always0
, and daemons conventionally have UIDs under 100.
– Barmar
Feb 21 '18 at 20:13
@Barmar If sorting by UID and not by name, indeed, thanks for remembering.
– Rui F Ribeiro
Feb 21 '18 at 20:16
add a comment |
Having root at first line has been a long time de facto "standard" and is very convenient if you ever have to fix their shell or delete the password, when dealing with problems or recovering systems.
Likewise I prefer to have daemons/utils users in the middle and standard users at the end of both passwd
and shadow
.
hvd
answer is also very good about disturbing the users order, especially in systems with many users maintained by hand.
If you somewhat manage to sort the files, for instance, only for standard users, it would be more sensible than changing the order of all users, imo.
Having root at first line has been a long time de facto "standard" and is very convenient if you ever have to fix their shell or delete the password, when dealing with problems or recovering systems.
Likewise I prefer to have daemons/utils users in the middle and standard users at the end of both passwd
and shadow
.
hvd
answer is also very good about disturbing the users order, especially in systems with many users maintained by hand.
If you somewhat manage to sort the files, for instance, only for standard users, it would be more sensible than changing the order of all users, imo.
edited Feb 20 '18 at 13:08
answered Feb 19 '18 at 17:53
Rui F RibeiroRui F Ribeiro
39.7k1479132
39.7k1479132
1
If you sort numerically by UID, you should get your preferred order. Root is always0
, and daemons conventionally have UIDs under 100.
– Barmar
Feb 21 '18 at 20:13
@Barmar If sorting by UID and not by name, indeed, thanks for remembering.
– Rui F Ribeiro
Feb 21 '18 at 20:16
add a comment |
1
If you sort numerically by UID, you should get your preferred order. Root is always0
, and daemons conventionally have UIDs under 100.
– Barmar
Feb 21 '18 at 20:13
@Barmar If sorting by UID and not by name, indeed, thanks for remembering.
– Rui F Ribeiro
Feb 21 '18 at 20:16
1
1
If you sort numerically by UID, you should get your preferred order. Root is always
0
, and daemons conventionally have UIDs under 100.– Barmar
Feb 21 '18 at 20:13
If you sort numerically by UID, you should get your preferred order. Root is always
0
, and daemons conventionally have UIDs under 100.– Barmar
Feb 21 '18 at 20:13
@Barmar If sorting by UID and not by name, indeed, thanks for remembering.
– Rui F Ribeiro
Feb 21 '18 at 20:16
@Barmar If sorting by UID and not by name, indeed, thanks for remembering.
– Rui F Ribeiro
Feb 21 '18 at 20:16
add a comment |
Here is a bit of somewhat hairy bash code to similarly sort the shadow/gshadow files safely (using vipw -s
/vigr -s
) and in-place from the command line:
EDITOR="/usr/bin/vi -c "1,\$!awk 'BEGIN {FS = \":\"} FNR==NR {x2[\$1] = \$0; next} \$1 in x2 {print x2 [\$1]}' - /etc/passwd ^V^J
:wq" >/dev/null 2>&1" vipw -s
EDITOR="/usr/bin/vi -c "1,\$!awk 'BEGIN {FS = \":\"} FNR==NR {x2[\$1] = \$0; next} \$1 in x2 {print x2 [\$1]}' - /etc/group ^V^J
:wq" >/dev/null 2>&1" vigr -s
NOTE:
^V^J
is CtrlVCtrlJ which generates a new line - this new line is needed to separate the vim command lines.
vi -c
passes the command to the vim editor which is assigned to be the editor forvipw
/vigr
by theEDITOR
variable- The awk code sorts
shadow
bypasswd
(andgshadow
bygroup
) - The backslashes are just the multiple levels of escape needed corresponding to the quotation levels.
New contributor
add a comment |
Here is a bit of somewhat hairy bash code to similarly sort the shadow/gshadow files safely (using vipw -s
/vigr -s
) and in-place from the command line:
EDITOR="/usr/bin/vi -c "1,\$!awk 'BEGIN {FS = \":\"} FNR==NR {x2[\$1] = \$0; next} \$1 in x2 {print x2 [\$1]}' - /etc/passwd ^V^J
:wq" >/dev/null 2>&1" vipw -s
EDITOR="/usr/bin/vi -c "1,\$!awk 'BEGIN {FS = \":\"} FNR==NR {x2[\$1] = \$0; next} \$1 in x2 {print x2 [\$1]}' - /etc/group ^V^J
:wq" >/dev/null 2>&1" vigr -s
NOTE:
^V^J
is CtrlVCtrlJ which generates a new line - this new line is needed to separate the vim command lines.
vi -c
passes the command to the vim editor which is assigned to be the editor forvipw
/vigr
by theEDITOR
variable- The awk code sorts
shadow
bypasswd
(andgshadow
bygroup
) - The backslashes are just the multiple levels of escape needed corresponding to the quotation levels.
New contributor
add a comment |
Here is a bit of somewhat hairy bash code to similarly sort the shadow/gshadow files safely (using vipw -s
/vigr -s
) and in-place from the command line:
EDITOR="/usr/bin/vi -c "1,\$!awk 'BEGIN {FS = \":\"} FNR==NR {x2[\$1] = \$0; next} \$1 in x2 {print x2 [\$1]}' - /etc/passwd ^V^J
:wq" >/dev/null 2>&1" vipw -s
EDITOR="/usr/bin/vi -c "1,\$!awk 'BEGIN {FS = \":\"} FNR==NR {x2[\$1] = \$0; next} \$1 in x2 {print x2 [\$1]}' - /etc/group ^V^J
:wq" >/dev/null 2>&1" vigr -s
NOTE:
^V^J
is CtrlVCtrlJ which generates a new line - this new line is needed to separate the vim command lines.
vi -c
passes the command to the vim editor which is assigned to be the editor forvipw
/vigr
by theEDITOR
variable- The awk code sorts
shadow
bypasswd
(andgshadow
bygroup
) - The backslashes are just the multiple levels of escape needed corresponding to the quotation levels.
New contributor
Here is a bit of somewhat hairy bash code to similarly sort the shadow/gshadow files safely (using vipw -s
/vigr -s
) and in-place from the command line:
EDITOR="/usr/bin/vi -c "1,\$!awk 'BEGIN {FS = \":\"} FNR==NR {x2[\$1] = \$0; next} \$1 in x2 {print x2 [\$1]}' - /etc/passwd ^V^J
:wq" >/dev/null 2>&1" vipw -s
EDITOR="/usr/bin/vi -c "1,\$!awk 'BEGIN {FS = \":\"} FNR==NR {x2[\$1] = \$0; next} \$1 in x2 {print x2 [\$1]}' - /etc/group ^V^J
:wq" >/dev/null 2>&1" vigr -s
NOTE:
^V^J
is CtrlVCtrlJ which generates a new line - this new line is needed to separate the vim command lines.
vi -c
passes the command to the vim editor which is assigned to be the editor forvipw
/vigr
by theEDITOR
variable- The awk code sorts
shadow
bypasswd
(andgshadow
bygroup
) - The backslashes are just the multiple levels of escape needed corresponding to the quotation levels.
New contributor
edited 49 secs ago
Olorin
3,2441417
3,2441417
New contributor
answered 9 mins ago
puterboyputerboy
11
11
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f424967%2fmay-i-sort-the-etc-group-and-etc-passwd-files%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
7
"Editing has now become a little cumbersome due to the lack of structure" Why are you editing those files by hand?
– Kevin
Feb 19 '18 at 23:50
How does sorting the file help with editing? Is it because you want to group related accounts together, and then do similar changes in a range of rows? But will related account be adjacent if you sort by uid or name?
– Barmar
Feb 21 '18 at 20:51
@Barmar It has helped mainly because user accounts are grouped by ranges and separate from system accounts (when sorting by UID). Therefore it is easier e.g. to spot the correct line to examine or change when editing with
vi
.– Ned64
Mar 13 '18 at 23:15