Bernhard Voelker wrote:
Bob Proulx wrote:
`-d'
`--directory'
List only the name of directories, not the contents. This is
most typically used with `-l' to list the information for the
directory itself instead of its contents. Do not follow symbolic
links
Bob Proulx wrote:
Option 2 with much more description:
`-d'
`--directory'
Do not list the contents of directories. List only the name.
Without this option any non-option command-line arguments that
are directories are treated specially and instead of the name the
On 04/12/2013 08:06 AM, Bob Proulx wrote:
Some local wordsmithing turned out the following as a better
improvement. It lists what it does in the positive first. And
removes the negative which was seen as being too confusing.
`-d'
`--directory'
List only the name of directories,
Eric Blake ebl...@redhat.com writes:
bash-specific:
$ (shopt -s nullglob; ls -d */ .[!.]/ .??*/)
$ (shopt -s dotglob; ls -d */)
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
And now for something completely
To: The most gracious and brilliant authors of the ever useful ls command.
(The title is quite heartfelt - no sarcasm intended).
I have to wonder. I've been using *nix of various kinds for nigh unto 15 years.
I ran into an issue today that I've seen many times, and it still irks me.
I've
Hello Ray,
Others can provide more detailed information about the rational of the dot
file,
but regarding your questions:
r...@electronicstheory.com wrote, On 04/11/2013 02:17 PM:
Once in a blue moon, a person would like to view the subdirectories of the
directory you are in, without seeing
tags 14189 + notabug
close 14189
thanks
http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/faq/#ls-_002dd-does-not-list-directories_0021
r...@electronicstheory.com wrote:
Once in a blue moon, a person would like to view the subdirectories of the
directory you are in, without seeing all the various files.
On 04/11/13 11:17, r...@electronicstheory.com wrote:
Is there
some reason it can't give me what (it appears) the manual says (and what makes
sense) it should?
Sounds like there's a bug in the manual; it shouldn't say that
ls -d outputs only directories. Can you please mention
the wording
On 04/11/2013 03:13 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
If you didn't want it to list only the name of the directory and not
the contents then why did you use the -d option? Since -d
specifically prevents it from listing the contents.
ls -d, I would think, would tell you the same data that ls would
On 04/11/2013 03:31 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
But for a full list of all subdirectory names excluding '.' and '..',
you need three globs; and either a shell option that suppresses a glob
that has no match, or ignoring the errors when ls tries to warn you when
a glob doesn't match:
Portable (but
Bob Proulx wrote:
10.1 `ls': List directory contents
==
The `ls' program lists information about files (of any type, including
directories). Options and file arguments can be intermixed
arbitrarily, as usual.
For non-option command-line
11 matches
Mail list logo
