GNU bug report logs - #14189
ls -d bug ??

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Bob Proulx <bob <at> proulx.com>
To: "ray <at> electronicstheory.com" <ray <at> electronicstheory.com>
Cc: 14189 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#14189: ls -d bug ??
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 15:13:19 -0600

tags 14189 + notabug
close 14189
thanks

http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/faq/#ls-_002dd-does-not-list-directories_0021

ray <at> 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.

Thank you for your report.  However what you are reporting is due to a
misunderstanding of the usage of the command.

> Since you can use the ls command to view the files and directories that are
> contained in your pwd, one would THINK the intuitive method would be to type ls
> -d.

But that is not correct.  And it isn't as documented.

> Interestingly, the MAN page seems to indicate that this is the way to go,

You have fallen into a trap.  The computer is executing a program and
does *exactly* what it was programmed to do.  The documentation is
written to say exactly what the program does.  But you are thinking
like a human and making an interpretation and an extrapolation based
upon what you *want* it to do.  Those are different things.

The GNU ls documentation says this:

  `-d'
  `--directory'
     List just the names of directories, as with other types of files,
     rather than listing their contents.  Do not follow symbolic links
     listed on the command line unless the `--dereference-command-line'
     (`-H'), `--dereference' (`-L'), or
     `--dereference-command-line-symlink-to-dir' options are specified.

The GNU ls man page says:

   -d, --directory
     list directory entries instead of contents, and do not
     dereference symbolic links

The online standards documents say:

  http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/ls.html
  -d
    Do not follow symbolic links named as operands unless the -H or -L
    options are specified.  Do not treat directories differently than
    other types of files.  The use of -d with -R produces unspecified
    results.

Each and every one of those applies the -d option to the arguments of
the ls command.  But what are the arguments to ls?  If you type in ls
with an argument then there is no doubt.

  $ mkdir foodir
  $ touch foodir/foofile1
  $ ls foodir
  foofile1

At that point there is no doubt.  You are asking it to list foodir.
Let's apply the -d option.

  $ ls -d foodir
  foodir

The -d option clearly applies to foodir.  Therefore it prevents it
from listing the contents.  It lists only the name of the directory.
This is as documented for -d that it lists only names and using -d
prevents it from listing the directory argument contents.

But what happens if you don't give ls an option?  What is the default
argument to ls?  The GNU ls documentation says:

  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 arguments that are directories, by
  default `ls' lists the contents of directories, not recursively, and
  omitting files with names beginning with `.'.  For other non-option
  arguments, by default `ls' lists just the file name.  If no non-option
  argument is specified, `ls' operates on the current directory, acting
  as if it had been invoked with a single argument of `.'.

That last line says it.  Let me repeat it for emphasis.

  If no non-option argument is specified, `ls' operates on the current
  directory, acting as if it had been invoked with a single argument
  of `.'.

If no arguments are specified then ls lists '.' as if it had been
invoked "ls .".

> however, regardless of what directory you are in, if you type
> 
> ls -d

If you run "ls -d" then we know from the documentation that it is the
same as saying "ls -d ." and that will simply list the name of it
because the -d option says only list the names of directories.
Therefore the expected behavior is that it must only list the name of
the '.' directory.

> you don't get the expected result, but rather you get:
> .

Unfortunately you had incorrect expectations! :-)

Any other result would be a bug.  I hope I have convinced you that
that ls is doing the right thing here and behaving as documented even
if it isn't doing what you want it to do.

This is a common misunderstanding and is one of the FAQ entries.
Please read the FAQ entry here:

  17 ls -d does not list directories!
  http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/faq/#ls-_002dd-does-not-list-directories_0021

> Wull DUH, like I couldn't figure out that I was in a directory.  If I wanted to
> get more info on that I'd type pwd !

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 {} +

I definitely recommend reading about "find".  It is an extremely
useful command.  Knowledge of it will apply to all of the utilities
uniformly.

I have gone ahead and closed this since it isn't a bug.  But please
feel free to continue the discussion.  It will all go into the bug log
and perhaps help the next person who searches for the information.

Bob

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.