Subject: Re: bug#14189: ls -d bug ??

From: Paul Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 14:20:03 -0700

On 04/11/13 11:17, [email-masked] 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 you're talking about?

To get something like what you want, you can use this command:

ls -d */

or maybe:

ls -d */ .*/