Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #236363

Re: "ls -d" OK, but not "ls"

Show all headers | View raw

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

On 2021-06-23 at 09:59, Vincent Lefevre wrote:

> On a Debian GNU/Linux 10 (buster) machine:
> 
> $ ls -ld /etc/systemd
> drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 0 2021-04-19 09:40:41 /etc/systemd
> $ ls /etc/systemd
> ls: cannot open directory '/etc/systemd': No such file or directory
> 
> Any explanation???

On a non-systemd machine, I get:


$ ls -ld /etc/systemd/
drwxr-xr-x 4 root root 4096 Jul 23  2019 /etc/systemd/
$ ls /etc/systemd/
system  user


It seems possible that the 4 vs. 3 may be notable.

An empty directory will normally report 2: the '.' link from inside it,
and the named link from the parent directory. 4 here reflects the two
'..' links from the two visible subdirectories; 3 would indicate that
one of those four links is missing on your system, and depending on
which one that is, it seems possible that that could lead to misbehaviors.

It could be useful to check on this with other tools. For a start, what
does

$ stat /etc/systemd/

report?


Also, my first thought was to verify that ls is running the way you
think it is. What do the following commands give you?

$ type ls
$ echo $LS_DEFAULT_OPTIONS

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

Back to linux.debian.user | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

"ls -d" OK, but not "ls" Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2021-06-23 16:10 +0200
  Re: "ls -d" OK, but not "ls" Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2021-06-23 16:20 +0200
    Re: "ls -d" OK, but not "ls" Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2021-06-23 16:20 +0200
  Re: "ls -d" OK, but not "ls" The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2021-06-23 16:20 +0200
    Re: "ls -d" OK, but not "ls" Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2021-06-23 16:30 +0200
      Re: "ls -d" OK, but not "ls" The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2021-06-23 16:50 +0200
      Re: "ls -d" OK, but not "ls" Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2021-06-23 16:50 +0200
        Re: "ls -d" OK, but not "ls" Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2021-06-23 16:50 +0200
  Re: "ls -d" OK, but not "ls" Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2021-06-23 16:30 +0200
    Re: "ls -d" OK, but not "ls" Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2021-06-23 16:50 +0200
      Re: "ls -d" OK, but not "ls" Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> - 2021-06-23 20:30 +0200
        Re: "ls -d" OK, but not "ls" Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2021-06-23 22:50 +0200
          Re: "ls -d" OK, but not "ls" Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net> - 2021-06-25 12:40 +0200
  Re: "ls -d" OK, but not "ls" Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2021-06-23 19:30 +0200

csiph-web