GNU bug report logs - #21218
ls -d

Previous Next

Full log

Message #24 received at 21218 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: "Sneeh, Eddie" <eddie.sneeh <at> roche.com>
To: Bob Proulx <bob <at> proulx.com>
Cc: 21218 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Eric Blake <eblake <at> redhat.com>
Subject: Re: bug#21218: ls -d
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 12:40:22 -0700

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi Bob, thanks for the info.
If ya'll don't want to consider this a bug, that's fine, but I suggest
updating the definition for -d to clarify the true behavior.  If it must be
used with other options for it to be useful, then the definition should say
so because I sure don't see "list directory entries instead of contents".
I'm yet to see the usefulness of this option (used alone), other than in
Eric's example, which is what I was after.
If someone has some examples of ls -d usage, *without adding other switches* ,
I'd appreciate it.
Thanks again,
Eddie


On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Bob Proulx <bob <at> proulx.com> wrote:

> Sneeh, Eddie wrote:
> > I believe there is a problem with ls -d (unless the intent is to just
> list
> > 1 directory).
>
> Just noting this has an FAQ entry:
>
>
> http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/faq/coreutils-faq.html#ls-_002dd-does-not-list-directories_0021
>
> Bob
>



-- 
Best Regards,
*Eddie Sneeh*

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Previous Next

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