bug#14189: ls -d bug ??

[Paul Eggert]

On 04/11/13 11:17, address@hidden wrote:
> Is there
> some reason it can't give me what (it appears) the manual says (and what makes
> sense) it should?

Sounds like there's a bug in the manual; it shouldn't say that
"ls -d" outputs only directories.  Can you please mention
the wording you're talking about?

To get something like what you want, you can use this command:

ls -d */

or maybe:

ls -d */ .*/