Re: "ls -d" OK, but not "ls"
On 2021-06-23 10:11:57 -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> 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.
These are systemd machines, and on the other machines on the network,
I get 6.
> It could be useful to check on this with other tools. For a start, what
> does
>
> $ stat /etc/systemd/
>
> report?
File: /etc/systemd/
Size: 0 Blocks: 8 IO Block: 4096 directory
Device: 17h/23d Inode: 118 Links: 3
Access: (0755/drwxr-xr-x) Uid: ( 0/ root) Gid: ( 0/ root)
Access: 2021-04-19 09:40:10.717284464 +0200
Modify: 2021-04-19 09:40:41.893170056 +0200
Change: 2021-04-19 09:40:41.941169879 +0200
Birth: -
The number of links is indeed strange.
I also suppose that the size should not be 0.
> 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
$ type ls
ls is /bin/ls
$ echo $LS_DEFAULT_OPTIONS
$
--
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
Reply to: