[SOLVED] Showing only directories with ls

[Ole Juul]

I've been trying to get the ls command to work as advertised. Could it be that the version of ls and the man page are not the same? The man page says:

-d, --directory
list directory entries instead of contents, and do not deref‐
erence symbolic links

However, "ls -d" only shows the current directory. What do other people do to only show directories?

[askrieger]

Re: Showing only directories with ls

I type "ls" because my ~/ only has directories and '.' files in it.

However, in other directories, I'm seeing the same incorrect behavior that you see.

[Ole Juul]

Re: Showing only directories with ls

I type "ls" because my ~/ only has directories and '.' files in it.

A man after my own heart! I'm not that clean in Linux yet, however I'm downright anal on my DOS machine - the root directory of a very large setup looks like this:

Directory of C:\

PATH   EDC     3,424 11-28-09 11:28a
SYS     <DIR>     08-30-08  2:44p
TMP     <DIR>     08-30-08  2:44p
    3 file(s)     3,424 bytes
           257,323,008 bytes free

Obviously not a 'windows machine.

[Rog131]

Re: Showing only directories with ls

Few examples:

> How can I list directories only in linux?
> How to: Linux or UNIX List just directories or directory names

[Ole Juul]

Re: Showing only directories with ls

Well Rog131, you win! I guess searching the net for an answer is a good idea after all. /blush

The idea of using grep in various ways is good. To use the ls command as (I guess) intended is pretty straightforward, but who would have guessed from the man page that it was:

ls -d */

It makes sense now that I see it - especially after having tried

ls */