passwd & group from 10.20 to 11.i

[Brad Marks]

I am in the process of migrating from a K-series running HP-UX 10.20 to an L-series running HP-UX11.i.

We wrote a script to go through our 10.20 passwd file, change the group that a good number of users belong to (from unknown group numbers to group 20 â users), and create a new group file from it. Everything looks good. I can successfully logon as different users using the new passwd file

Because of some strange behaviors with the new passwd / group files on the 11.i machine, I ran grpck. It gives the two following warnings:
1.â Warning: large entry - size is 2032, maximum size is 2048â
2."Warning: large multi-line group - size is 4061, maximum size is 2048â

I also ran grpck against the identical group file on the 10.20 machine and these warnings did not occur.

The group â usersâ has a few hundred users associated to it.

Is this a 10.20 vs. 11.i issue? If so, does this mean that I have to reenter 825 users?!?!?

Thanks

[Michael Tully]

Are these entries for the primary group that you've placed into the 11.x system /etc/group?
If so it is not necessary. Only secondary group requires the user id to be added to the /etc/group file.

[Steven E. Protter]

There may have been format changes, though I would not know what they are between 10.20 and 11i.

A good practice is to add the users in new with 7-14 expiration. Then set the password, deliver the new password to the users along with the system change notice.

Thats a recommendation, not a rule.

SEP

[generic_1]

If you ever do this on a trusted system I believe there are significant differences in the trusted files/filesystem. between 10.20 and 11 just as a FYI. Be sure to do a make tape recovery. :)

10.20's password format is:
root:encryptedpassword:0:3::/:/sbin/sh
Also note that there are required accounts that are different between 10.20 and 11.0
Good luck

[Brad Marks]

Please bear with my newbie-ness. Do you refer to a user's 'primary' group as the group number in the users' /etc/passwd entry?

If so, does this mean that, as long as each user belongs to only one group, there could actually be no user ID's associated to any entries in /etc/group?

Thanks!

[Michael Tully · Accepted solution]

That's correct. The primary group of each user does not need to be in the /etc/group file.

It is only the secondary groups that users may need to belong that requires in an entry in /etc/group

It is quite possible to have virtually an empty /etc/group file. The real notable exception is root, which will belong to many groups.