How to list folders using bash commands?

Multi tool use
up vote
51
down vote
favorite
Is there any way to list just the folders in a directory using bash commands? ( as the ls
command lists all the files and folders )
linux command-line ls
add a comment |
up vote
51
down vote
favorite
Is there any way to list just the folders in a directory using bash commands? ( as the ls
command lists all the files and folders )
linux command-line ls
add a comment |
up vote
51
down vote
favorite
up vote
51
down vote
favorite
Is there any way to list just the folders in a directory using bash commands? ( as the ls
command lists all the files and folders )
linux command-line ls
Is there any way to list just the folders in a directory using bash commands? ( as the ls
command lists all the files and folders )
linux command-line ls
linux command-line ls
edited Jul 21 '14 at 17:17


That Brazilian Guy
4,73775090
4,73775090
asked Sep 14 '11 at 8:27


SpiXel
4643714
4643714
add a comment |
add a comment |
8 Answers
8
active
oldest
votes
up vote
64
down vote
accepted
You can use:
ls -d -- */
Since all directories end in /
, this lists only the directories in the current path. The -d option ensures that only the directory names are printed, not their contents.
2
ls -- */ lists all directories with their contents below
– Vins
Jan 21 '13 at 11:32
@8088 What is the difference betweenls -d -- */
andls -d */
?
– Louis
Mar 24 '14 at 17:25
4
@Louis,--
is conventionally used to mark the end of options, so that if a file is named-l
ls won't interpret it as the long listing format option.
– Cristian Ciupitu
Apr 22 '14 at 0:20
add a comment |
up vote
26
down vote
Stephen Martin's response gave a warning, and listed the current folder as well, so I'd suggest
find . -mindepth 1 -maxdepth 1 -type d
(This is on Linux; I could not find -maxdepth and -mindepth in the POSIX man page for find)
1
Older question I know. While I would too initially turn to find for this task, I like thels -d -- */
option, asfind
will find hidden directorties too. Which can sometimes be useful, but also sometimes cause trouble. I hope this comment might help others. +1
– matchew
Dec 21 '12 at 16:16
add a comment |
up vote
12
down vote
find . -maxdepth 1 -type d
Will list just folders. And as Teddy pointed out you'll need -maxdepth to stop it recusrsing into sub dirs
5
You probably want-maxdepth 1
too.
– Teddy
Sep 14 '11 at 8:40
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
Daniel’s answer is correct. Here are some useful additions, though.
To avoid listing hidden folders (like .git
), try this:
find . -mindepth 1 -maxdepth 1 -type d ( ! -iname ".*" )
And to replace the dreaded dot slash at the beginning of find
output in some environments, use this:
find . -mindepth 1 -maxdepth 1 -type d ( ! -iname ".*" ) | sed 's|^./||g'
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
You're "not supposed to" parse the output of ls, or so is said. The reasoning behind is that the output is intended to be human-readable and that can make it unnecessarily complicated to parse, if I recall.
if you don't want ls or find, you may want to try filtering "*" with "[ -d ]".
I did just that, for some reason ls and find weren't working (file names with spaces and brackets I guess, or somthing else I was overlooking), then I did something along the lines of
for f in * ; do [ -d "$f" ] && echo $f is indeed a folder ; done
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Just to emphasize a thing that confused me out here, in respect to glob patterns selection; say you have this:
$ cd /tmp
$ mkdir testglob
$ for ix in {00,01,02,03} ; do mkdir testglob/mydir_${ix} ; done
$ for ix in {00,01,02,03} ; do touch testglob/myfile_${ix} ; done
$ for ix in {00,01,02,03} ; do touch testglob/mydir_${ix}.txt ; done
$ for ix in {00,01,02,03} ; do mkdir testglob/otherdir_${ix} ; done
$ tree testglob/
testglob/
├── mydir_00
├── mydir_00.txt
├── mydir_01
├── mydir_01.txt
├── mydir_02
├── mydir_02.txt
├── mydir_03
├── mydir_03.txt
├── myfile_00
├── myfile_01
├── myfile_02
├── myfile_03
├── otherdir_00
├── otherdir_01
├── otherdir_02
└── otherdir_03
8 directories, 8 files
So, say here you want to select only mydir*
directories. Note that if you leave out the terminating slash, ls -d
will list files as well:
$ ls -d testglob/mydir* # also `ls -d -- testglob/mydir*`
testglob/mydir_00 testglob/mydir_01 testglob/mydir_02 testglob/mydir_03
testglob/mydir_00.txt testglob/mydir_01.txt testglob/mydir_02.txt testglob/mydir_03.txt
... however, with a terminating slash, then only directories are listed:
$ ls -d testglob/mydir*/ # also `ls -d -- testglob/mydir*/`
testglob/mydir_00/ testglob/mydir_01/ testglob/mydir_02/ testglob/mydir_03/
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
printf "%sn" */
will list all directories in the $PWD.
echo */
will also work, but in a long one-line, more difficult when names have spaces.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
You can also use:
du
Or:
git ls-tree -d -r --name-only @
- http://git-scm.com/docs/git-ls-tree
- http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/du.html
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "3"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f335376%2fhow-to-list-folders-using-bash-commands%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
8 Answers
8
active
oldest
votes
8 Answers
8
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
64
down vote
accepted
You can use:
ls -d -- */
Since all directories end in /
, this lists only the directories in the current path. The -d option ensures that only the directory names are printed, not their contents.
2
ls -- */ lists all directories with their contents below
– Vins
Jan 21 '13 at 11:32
@8088 What is the difference betweenls -d -- */
andls -d */
?
– Louis
Mar 24 '14 at 17:25
4
@Louis,--
is conventionally used to mark the end of options, so that if a file is named-l
ls won't interpret it as the long listing format option.
– Cristian Ciupitu
Apr 22 '14 at 0:20
add a comment |
up vote
64
down vote
accepted
You can use:
ls -d -- */
Since all directories end in /
, this lists only the directories in the current path. The -d option ensures that only the directory names are printed, not their contents.
2
ls -- */ lists all directories with their contents below
– Vins
Jan 21 '13 at 11:32
@8088 What is the difference betweenls -d -- */
andls -d */
?
– Louis
Mar 24 '14 at 17:25
4
@Louis,--
is conventionally used to mark the end of options, so that if a file is named-l
ls won't interpret it as the long listing format option.
– Cristian Ciupitu
Apr 22 '14 at 0:20
add a comment |
up vote
64
down vote
accepted
up vote
64
down vote
accepted
You can use:
ls -d -- */
Since all directories end in /
, this lists only the directories in the current path. The -d option ensures that only the directory names are printed, not their contents.
You can use:
ls -d -- */
Since all directories end in /
, this lists only the directories in the current path. The -d option ensures that only the directory names are printed, not their contents.
edited Sep 14 '11 at 8:47
answered Sep 14 '11 at 8:35


3498DB
15.6k114762
15.6k114762
2
ls -- */ lists all directories with their contents below
– Vins
Jan 21 '13 at 11:32
@8088 What is the difference betweenls -d -- */
andls -d */
?
– Louis
Mar 24 '14 at 17:25
4
@Louis,--
is conventionally used to mark the end of options, so that if a file is named-l
ls won't interpret it as the long listing format option.
– Cristian Ciupitu
Apr 22 '14 at 0:20
add a comment |
2
ls -- */ lists all directories with their contents below
– Vins
Jan 21 '13 at 11:32
@8088 What is the difference betweenls -d -- */
andls -d */
?
– Louis
Mar 24 '14 at 17:25
4
@Louis,--
is conventionally used to mark the end of options, so that if a file is named-l
ls won't interpret it as the long listing format option.
– Cristian Ciupitu
Apr 22 '14 at 0:20
2
2
ls -- */ lists all directories with their contents below
– Vins
Jan 21 '13 at 11:32
ls -- */ lists all directories with their contents below
– Vins
Jan 21 '13 at 11:32
@8088 What is the difference between
ls -d -- */
and ls -d */
?– Louis
Mar 24 '14 at 17:25
@8088 What is the difference between
ls -d -- */
and ls -d */
?– Louis
Mar 24 '14 at 17:25
4
4
@Louis,
--
is conventionally used to mark the end of options, so that if a file is named -l
ls won't interpret it as the long listing format option.– Cristian Ciupitu
Apr 22 '14 at 0:20
@Louis,
--
is conventionally used to mark the end of options, so that if a file is named -l
ls won't interpret it as the long listing format option.– Cristian Ciupitu
Apr 22 '14 at 0:20
add a comment |
up vote
26
down vote
Stephen Martin's response gave a warning, and listed the current folder as well, so I'd suggest
find . -mindepth 1 -maxdepth 1 -type d
(This is on Linux; I could not find -maxdepth and -mindepth in the POSIX man page for find)
1
Older question I know. While I would too initially turn to find for this task, I like thels -d -- */
option, asfind
will find hidden directorties too. Which can sometimes be useful, but also sometimes cause trouble. I hope this comment might help others. +1
– matchew
Dec 21 '12 at 16:16
add a comment |
up vote
26
down vote
Stephen Martin's response gave a warning, and listed the current folder as well, so I'd suggest
find . -mindepth 1 -maxdepth 1 -type d
(This is on Linux; I could not find -maxdepth and -mindepth in the POSIX man page for find)
1
Older question I know. While I would too initially turn to find for this task, I like thels -d -- */
option, asfind
will find hidden directorties too. Which can sometimes be useful, but also sometimes cause trouble. I hope this comment might help others. +1
– matchew
Dec 21 '12 at 16:16
add a comment |
up vote
26
down vote
up vote
26
down vote
Stephen Martin's response gave a warning, and listed the current folder as well, so I'd suggest
find . -mindepth 1 -maxdepth 1 -type d
(This is on Linux; I could not find -maxdepth and -mindepth in the POSIX man page for find)
Stephen Martin's response gave a warning, and listed the current folder as well, so I'd suggest
find . -mindepth 1 -maxdepth 1 -type d
(This is on Linux; I could not find -maxdepth and -mindepth in the POSIX man page for find)
answered Sep 14 '11 at 9:09
daniel kullmann
54049
54049
1
Older question I know. While I would too initially turn to find for this task, I like thels -d -- */
option, asfind
will find hidden directorties too. Which can sometimes be useful, but also sometimes cause trouble. I hope this comment might help others. +1
– matchew
Dec 21 '12 at 16:16
add a comment |
1
Older question I know. While I would too initially turn to find for this task, I like thels -d -- */
option, asfind
will find hidden directorties too. Which can sometimes be useful, but also sometimes cause trouble. I hope this comment might help others. +1
– matchew
Dec 21 '12 at 16:16
1
1
Older question I know. While I would too initially turn to find for this task, I like the
ls -d -- */
option, as find
will find hidden directorties too. Which can sometimes be useful, but also sometimes cause trouble. I hope this comment might help others. +1– matchew
Dec 21 '12 at 16:16
Older question I know. While I would too initially turn to find for this task, I like the
ls -d -- */
option, as find
will find hidden directorties too. Which can sometimes be useful, but also sometimes cause trouble. I hope this comment might help others. +1– matchew
Dec 21 '12 at 16:16
add a comment |
up vote
12
down vote
find . -maxdepth 1 -type d
Will list just folders. And as Teddy pointed out you'll need -maxdepth to stop it recusrsing into sub dirs
5
You probably want-maxdepth 1
too.
– Teddy
Sep 14 '11 at 8:40
add a comment |
up vote
12
down vote
find . -maxdepth 1 -type d
Will list just folders. And as Teddy pointed out you'll need -maxdepth to stop it recusrsing into sub dirs
5
You probably want-maxdepth 1
too.
– Teddy
Sep 14 '11 at 8:40
add a comment |
up vote
12
down vote
up vote
12
down vote
find . -maxdepth 1 -type d
Will list just folders. And as Teddy pointed out you'll need -maxdepth to stop it recusrsing into sub dirs
find . -maxdepth 1 -type d
Will list just folders. And as Teddy pointed out you'll need -maxdepth to stop it recusrsing into sub dirs
edited Sep 14 '11 at 9:17
answered Sep 14 '11 at 8:33
0x7c0
1,6601323
1,6601323
5
You probably want-maxdepth 1
too.
– Teddy
Sep 14 '11 at 8:40
add a comment |
5
You probably want-maxdepth 1
too.
– Teddy
Sep 14 '11 at 8:40
5
5
You probably want
-maxdepth 1
too.– Teddy
Sep 14 '11 at 8:40
You probably want
-maxdepth 1
too.– Teddy
Sep 14 '11 at 8:40
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
Daniel’s answer is correct. Here are some useful additions, though.
To avoid listing hidden folders (like .git
), try this:
find . -mindepth 1 -maxdepth 1 -type d ( ! -iname ".*" )
And to replace the dreaded dot slash at the beginning of find
output in some environments, use this:
find . -mindepth 1 -maxdepth 1 -type d ( ! -iname ".*" ) | sed 's|^./||g'
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
Daniel’s answer is correct. Here are some useful additions, though.
To avoid listing hidden folders (like .git
), try this:
find . -mindepth 1 -maxdepth 1 -type d ( ! -iname ".*" )
And to replace the dreaded dot slash at the beginning of find
output in some environments, use this:
find . -mindepth 1 -maxdepth 1 -type d ( ! -iname ".*" ) | sed 's|^./||g'
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
Daniel’s answer is correct. Here are some useful additions, though.
To avoid listing hidden folders (like .git
), try this:
find . -mindepth 1 -maxdepth 1 -type d ( ! -iname ".*" )
And to replace the dreaded dot slash at the beginning of find
output in some environments, use this:
find . -mindepth 1 -maxdepth 1 -type d ( ! -iname ".*" ) | sed 's|^./||g'
Daniel’s answer is correct. Here are some useful additions, though.
To avoid listing hidden folders (like .git
), try this:
find . -mindepth 1 -maxdepth 1 -type d ( ! -iname ".*" )
And to replace the dreaded dot slash at the beginning of find
output in some environments, use this:
find . -mindepth 1 -maxdepth 1 -type d ( ! -iname ".*" ) | sed 's|^./||g'
edited Mar 20 '17 at 10:17
Community♦
1
1
answered May 9 '13 at 7:53
Mathias Bynens
1,47152337
1,47152337
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
You're "not supposed to" parse the output of ls, or so is said. The reasoning behind is that the output is intended to be human-readable and that can make it unnecessarily complicated to parse, if I recall.
if you don't want ls or find, you may want to try filtering "*" with "[ -d ]".
I did just that, for some reason ls and find weren't working (file names with spaces and brackets I guess, or somthing else I was overlooking), then I did something along the lines of
for f in * ; do [ -d "$f" ] && echo $f is indeed a folder ; done
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
You're "not supposed to" parse the output of ls, or so is said. The reasoning behind is that the output is intended to be human-readable and that can make it unnecessarily complicated to parse, if I recall.
if you don't want ls or find, you may want to try filtering "*" with "[ -d ]".
I did just that, for some reason ls and find weren't working (file names with spaces and brackets I guess, or somthing else I was overlooking), then I did something along the lines of
for f in * ; do [ -d "$f" ] && echo $f is indeed a folder ; done
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
You're "not supposed to" parse the output of ls, or so is said. The reasoning behind is that the output is intended to be human-readable and that can make it unnecessarily complicated to parse, if I recall.
if you don't want ls or find, you may want to try filtering "*" with "[ -d ]".
I did just that, for some reason ls and find weren't working (file names with spaces and brackets I guess, or somthing else I was overlooking), then I did something along the lines of
for f in * ; do [ -d "$f" ] && echo $f is indeed a folder ; done
You're "not supposed to" parse the output of ls, or so is said. The reasoning behind is that the output is intended to be human-readable and that can make it unnecessarily complicated to parse, if I recall.
if you don't want ls or find, you may want to try filtering "*" with "[ -d ]".
I did just that, for some reason ls and find weren't working (file names with spaces and brackets I guess, or somthing else I was overlooking), then I did something along the lines of
for f in * ; do [ -d "$f" ] && echo $f is indeed a folder ; done
answered May 31 '14 at 0:32
the lone debianer
163
163
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Just to emphasize a thing that confused me out here, in respect to glob patterns selection; say you have this:
$ cd /tmp
$ mkdir testglob
$ for ix in {00,01,02,03} ; do mkdir testglob/mydir_${ix} ; done
$ for ix in {00,01,02,03} ; do touch testglob/myfile_${ix} ; done
$ for ix in {00,01,02,03} ; do touch testglob/mydir_${ix}.txt ; done
$ for ix in {00,01,02,03} ; do mkdir testglob/otherdir_${ix} ; done
$ tree testglob/
testglob/
├── mydir_00
├── mydir_00.txt
├── mydir_01
├── mydir_01.txt
├── mydir_02
├── mydir_02.txt
├── mydir_03
├── mydir_03.txt
├── myfile_00
├── myfile_01
├── myfile_02
├── myfile_03
├── otherdir_00
├── otherdir_01
├── otherdir_02
└── otherdir_03
8 directories, 8 files
So, say here you want to select only mydir*
directories. Note that if you leave out the terminating slash, ls -d
will list files as well:
$ ls -d testglob/mydir* # also `ls -d -- testglob/mydir*`
testglob/mydir_00 testglob/mydir_01 testglob/mydir_02 testglob/mydir_03
testglob/mydir_00.txt testglob/mydir_01.txt testglob/mydir_02.txt testglob/mydir_03.txt
... however, with a terminating slash, then only directories are listed:
$ ls -d testglob/mydir*/ # also `ls -d -- testglob/mydir*/`
testglob/mydir_00/ testglob/mydir_01/ testglob/mydir_02/ testglob/mydir_03/
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Just to emphasize a thing that confused me out here, in respect to glob patterns selection; say you have this:
$ cd /tmp
$ mkdir testglob
$ for ix in {00,01,02,03} ; do mkdir testglob/mydir_${ix} ; done
$ for ix in {00,01,02,03} ; do touch testglob/myfile_${ix} ; done
$ for ix in {00,01,02,03} ; do touch testglob/mydir_${ix}.txt ; done
$ for ix in {00,01,02,03} ; do mkdir testglob/otherdir_${ix} ; done
$ tree testglob/
testglob/
├── mydir_00
├── mydir_00.txt
├── mydir_01
├── mydir_01.txt
├── mydir_02
├── mydir_02.txt
├── mydir_03
├── mydir_03.txt
├── myfile_00
├── myfile_01
├── myfile_02
├── myfile_03
├── otherdir_00
├── otherdir_01
├── otherdir_02
└── otherdir_03
8 directories, 8 files
So, say here you want to select only mydir*
directories. Note that if you leave out the terminating slash, ls -d
will list files as well:
$ ls -d testglob/mydir* # also `ls -d -- testglob/mydir*`
testglob/mydir_00 testglob/mydir_01 testglob/mydir_02 testglob/mydir_03
testglob/mydir_00.txt testglob/mydir_01.txt testglob/mydir_02.txt testglob/mydir_03.txt
... however, with a terminating slash, then only directories are listed:
$ ls -d testglob/mydir*/ # also `ls -d -- testglob/mydir*/`
testglob/mydir_00/ testglob/mydir_01/ testglob/mydir_02/ testglob/mydir_03/
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Just to emphasize a thing that confused me out here, in respect to glob patterns selection; say you have this:
$ cd /tmp
$ mkdir testglob
$ for ix in {00,01,02,03} ; do mkdir testglob/mydir_${ix} ; done
$ for ix in {00,01,02,03} ; do touch testglob/myfile_${ix} ; done
$ for ix in {00,01,02,03} ; do touch testglob/mydir_${ix}.txt ; done
$ for ix in {00,01,02,03} ; do mkdir testglob/otherdir_${ix} ; done
$ tree testglob/
testglob/
├── mydir_00
├── mydir_00.txt
├── mydir_01
├── mydir_01.txt
├── mydir_02
├── mydir_02.txt
├── mydir_03
├── mydir_03.txt
├── myfile_00
├── myfile_01
├── myfile_02
├── myfile_03
├── otherdir_00
├── otherdir_01
├── otherdir_02
└── otherdir_03
8 directories, 8 files
So, say here you want to select only mydir*
directories. Note that if you leave out the terminating slash, ls -d
will list files as well:
$ ls -d testglob/mydir* # also `ls -d -- testglob/mydir*`
testglob/mydir_00 testglob/mydir_01 testglob/mydir_02 testglob/mydir_03
testglob/mydir_00.txt testglob/mydir_01.txt testglob/mydir_02.txt testglob/mydir_03.txt
... however, with a terminating slash, then only directories are listed:
$ ls -d testglob/mydir*/ # also `ls -d -- testglob/mydir*/`
testglob/mydir_00/ testglob/mydir_01/ testglob/mydir_02/ testglob/mydir_03/
Just to emphasize a thing that confused me out here, in respect to glob patterns selection; say you have this:
$ cd /tmp
$ mkdir testglob
$ for ix in {00,01,02,03} ; do mkdir testglob/mydir_${ix} ; done
$ for ix in {00,01,02,03} ; do touch testglob/myfile_${ix} ; done
$ for ix in {00,01,02,03} ; do touch testglob/mydir_${ix}.txt ; done
$ for ix in {00,01,02,03} ; do mkdir testglob/otherdir_${ix} ; done
$ tree testglob/
testglob/
├── mydir_00
├── mydir_00.txt
├── mydir_01
├── mydir_01.txt
├── mydir_02
├── mydir_02.txt
├── mydir_03
├── mydir_03.txt
├── myfile_00
├── myfile_01
├── myfile_02
├── myfile_03
├── otherdir_00
├── otherdir_01
├── otherdir_02
└── otherdir_03
8 directories, 8 files
So, say here you want to select only mydir*
directories. Note that if you leave out the terminating slash, ls -d
will list files as well:
$ ls -d testglob/mydir* # also `ls -d -- testglob/mydir*`
testglob/mydir_00 testglob/mydir_01 testglob/mydir_02 testglob/mydir_03
testglob/mydir_00.txt testglob/mydir_01.txt testglob/mydir_02.txt testglob/mydir_03.txt
... however, with a terminating slash, then only directories are listed:
$ ls -d testglob/mydir*/ # also `ls -d -- testglob/mydir*/`
testglob/mydir_00/ testglob/mydir_01/ testglob/mydir_02/ testglob/mydir_03/
answered Sep 12 '13 at 10:58
sdaau
2,39543657
2,39543657
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
printf "%sn" */
will list all directories in the $PWD.
echo */
will also work, but in a long one-line, more difficult when names have spaces.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
printf "%sn" */
will list all directories in the $PWD.
echo */
will also work, but in a long one-line, more difficult when names have spaces.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
printf "%sn" */
will list all directories in the $PWD.
echo */
will also work, but in a long one-line, more difficult when names have spaces.
printf "%sn" */
will list all directories in the $PWD.
echo */
will also work, but in a long one-line, more difficult when names have spaces.
answered Jul 24 '15 at 6:26
user353322
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
You can also use:
du
Or:
git ls-tree -d -r --name-only @
- http://git-scm.com/docs/git-ls-tree
- http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/du.html
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
You can also use:
du
Or:
git ls-tree -d -r --name-only @
- http://git-scm.com/docs/git-ls-tree
- http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/du.html
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
You can also use:
du
Or:
git ls-tree -d -r --name-only @
- http://git-scm.com/docs/git-ls-tree
- http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/du.html
You can also use:
du
Or:
git ls-tree -d -r --name-only @
- http://git-scm.com/docs/git-ls-tree
- http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/du.html
answered Dec 3 at 18:09
Steven Penny
4,1101683133
4,1101683133
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Super User!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f335376%2fhow-to-list-folders-using-bash-commands%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
bd,9TyspTJrQPncgbOHer61f2d IT344A xnzQ24d4QNX9a LFBWi1D,B3pBlM,rcJUPG2F lbn5 IXIopj4l,mMdalO