bug#21218: ls -d

[Sneeh, Eddie]

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 <address@hidden> 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