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 tell you,
>> minus
>> the individual files.
>> (In other words - show all the data with a "d" in the permissions, but not
>> show
>> the ones that don't have a "d" in the permissions).
>
> Perhaps you want this?
>
> $ ls -log | grep ^d
> $ ls -log | grep -v ^d
>
> Or one of these:
>
> $ find . -maxdepth 1 -type d -ls
> $ find . -maxdepth 1 -type d -exec ls -logd {} +Or you could use this to approximate things: $ ls -d */ the trailing slash forces the shell to filter out non-directories as part of expanding the glob, and then list just the names instead of the contents of all remaining directories. But as written that only lists non-hidden directories. If you don't mind listing '.', you can get closer with: $ ls -d */ .*/ 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 risks hiding errors): $ ls -d */ .[!.]/ .??*/ 2>/dev/null bash-specific: $ (shopt -s nullglob; ls -d */ .[!.]/ .??*/) All the sudden, the 'find' alternative suddenly seems nicer :) -- Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
