Find directories that do not contain subdirectories












6















I'm writing script is ksh. Need to find all directory names directly under the current directory which contain only files, not subdirectories.



I know that I could use ls -alR and recursively parse output for the first letter in the first field (d for a directory). I think awk is the best way to parse and find.



For example, a simple ls -al output in the current directory:



   drwxr-xr-x  22 af      staff    748 18 Mar 22:21 .
drwxr-xr-x 5 root admin 170 17 Mar 18:03 ..
-rw------- 1 af staff 3 17 Mar 16:37 .CFUserTextEncoding
drwxr-xr-x 5 af staff 170 17 Mar 17:12 Public
drwxr-xr-x 9 af staff 306 18 Mar 17:40 Sites
-rw------- 1 af staff 3 17 Mar 16:37 textd



There are 2 directories in this output: Public and Sites. The directory Public doesn't contain subdirectories, but Sites does. There are 3 subdirectories in Sites. So I need to echo only the directories which don't contain directories in them. In my case, this is only Sites.










share|improve this question





























    6















    I'm writing script is ksh. Need to find all directory names directly under the current directory which contain only files, not subdirectories.



    I know that I could use ls -alR and recursively parse output for the first letter in the first field (d for a directory). I think awk is the best way to parse and find.



    For example, a simple ls -al output in the current directory:



       drwxr-xr-x  22 af      staff    748 18 Mar 22:21 .
    drwxr-xr-x 5 root admin 170 17 Mar 18:03 ..
    -rw------- 1 af staff 3 17 Mar 16:37 .CFUserTextEncoding
    drwxr-xr-x 5 af staff 170 17 Mar 17:12 Public
    drwxr-xr-x 9 af staff 306 18 Mar 17:40 Sites
    -rw------- 1 af staff 3 17 Mar 16:37 textd



    There are 2 directories in this output: Public and Sites. The directory Public doesn't contain subdirectories, but Sites does. There are 3 subdirectories in Sites. So I need to echo only the directories which don't contain directories in them. In my case, this is only Sites.










    share|improve this question



























      6












      6








      6


      5






      I'm writing script is ksh. Need to find all directory names directly under the current directory which contain only files, not subdirectories.



      I know that I could use ls -alR and recursively parse output for the first letter in the first field (d for a directory). I think awk is the best way to parse and find.



      For example, a simple ls -al output in the current directory:



         drwxr-xr-x  22 af      staff    748 18 Mar 22:21 .
      drwxr-xr-x 5 root admin 170 17 Mar 18:03 ..
      -rw------- 1 af staff 3 17 Mar 16:37 .CFUserTextEncoding
      drwxr-xr-x 5 af staff 170 17 Mar 17:12 Public
      drwxr-xr-x 9 af staff 306 18 Mar 17:40 Sites
      -rw------- 1 af staff 3 17 Mar 16:37 textd



      There are 2 directories in this output: Public and Sites. The directory Public doesn't contain subdirectories, but Sites does. There are 3 subdirectories in Sites. So I need to echo only the directories which don't contain directories in them. In my case, this is only Sites.










      share|improve this question
















      I'm writing script is ksh. Need to find all directory names directly under the current directory which contain only files, not subdirectories.



      I know that I could use ls -alR and recursively parse output for the first letter in the first field (d for a directory). I think awk is the best way to parse and find.



      For example, a simple ls -al output in the current directory:



         drwxr-xr-x  22 af      staff    748 18 Mar 22:21 .
      drwxr-xr-x 5 root admin 170 17 Mar 18:03 ..
      -rw------- 1 af staff 3 17 Mar 16:37 .CFUserTextEncoding
      drwxr-xr-x 5 af staff 170 17 Mar 17:12 Public
      drwxr-xr-x 9 af staff 306 18 Mar 17:40 Sites
      -rw------- 1 af staff 3 17 Mar 16:37 textd



      There are 2 directories in this output: Public and Sites. The directory Public doesn't contain subdirectories, but Sites does. There are 3 subdirectories in Sites. So I need to echo only the directories which don't contain directories in them. In my case, this is only Sites.







      shell find directory ls ksh






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Nov 21 '18 at 22:03









      Rui F Ribeiro

      39.9k1479135




      39.9k1479135










      asked Mar 20 '13 at 16:31









      Nat KupNat Kup

      3314




      3314






















          4 Answers
          4






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          1














          You don't need to use awk at all. Use the built-in tests that ksh provides, something like this:



          #!/bin/ksh

          for NAME in *
          do
          FOUND=no
          if [[ -d $NAME && $NAME != '.' && $NAME != '..' ]]
          then
          for SUBNAME in $NAME/*
          do
          if [[ -d $SUBNAME ]]
          then
          FOUND=yes
          break
          fi
          done
          if [[ $FOUND == no ]]
          then
          echo Found only files in $NAME
          fi
          fi
          done


          That little script looks in all the directories in the current directory, and tells you if they only contain files, no sub-directories.






          share|improve this answer































            9














            If you are able to use find and if you are working on a "normal Unix filesystem" (that is, as defined in find(1) under -noleaf option description), then the following command can be used:



            find . -type d -links 2


            Each directory has at least 2 names (hard links): . and its name. Its subdirectories, if any, will have a .. pointing to the parent directory, so a directory with N subdirectories will have hard link count equal to N+2. Thus, searching for directories with hard link count equal to 2, we search for directories with N=0 subdirectories.



            So, if you can use find, this is arguably the fastest method and obviously superior to in-shell loops over the directory contents stat()'ing each of its members.






            share|improve this answer
























            • This doesn't seem to work if the directory contains any files.

              – user394
              Sep 26 '18 at 0:58






            • 1





              It's not about entries in the directory listing, it's about hard links referring to the directory's inode. For example, if /some/directory has inode #12345678, if it has no sub-directories, there will be exactly 2 hard links to that inode: /some/directory/. and /some/directory. It works whether or not there are any files in the directory.

              – telcoM
              Jan 28 at 13:05











            • Worth mentioning that BTRFS is not a "normal Unix filesystem" in this respect: directories always have a link count of 1, unfortunately. (But . and foo/.. do have the same inode number.)

              – Peter Cordes
              Jan 29 at 5:04



















            3














            */ matches the subdirectories of the current directory. This includes symbolic links to directories, which you may or may not desire.



            In ksh93, adding ~(N) at the beginning of the pattern makes it expand to the empty list if there is no match. Without this, the pattern remains unchanged if there is no match.



            The following ksh93 function lists the subdirectories of the current directories that do not contain any subdirectory or link to a directory.



            list_leaf_directories () {
            local FIGNORE='.?(.)' # don't ignore dot files
            local d
            for d in */; do
            [[ -L $d ]] || continue; # skip symbolic links
            set -- ~(N)"$d"/*/
            if ((!$#)); then echo "$d"; fi
            done
            done





            share|improve this answer

































              0














              if I am not misunderstanding you, you only want to find files in the directory not the subdirectories. If this is your intention, here is the solution



              find . -type f


              if you want to find other than regular files (like block device files, character device files etc) then see the man page for find command and look for the type keyword on that page. You will see different filetypes, including regular files and directories etc.



              Hope this is what you are looking for






              share|improve this answer
























              • No, that's not the question at all. It's reasonably clear once you s/catalogue/directory/g. Nat Kup is looking for directories that don't contain subdirectories.

                – Gilles
                Mar 20 '13 at 23:12











              Your Answer








              StackExchange.ready(function() {
              var channelOptions = {
              tags: "".split(" "),
              id: "106"
              };
              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',
              autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
              convertImagesToLinks: false,
              noModals: true,
              showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
              reputationToPostImages: null,
              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
              });


              }
              });














              draft saved

              draft discarded


















              StackExchange.ready(
              function () {
              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f68577%2ffind-directories-that-do-not-contain-subdirectories%23new-answer', 'question_page');
              }
              );

              Post as a guest















              Required, but never shown

























              4 Answers
              4






              active

              oldest

              votes








              4 Answers
              4






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes









              1














              You don't need to use awk at all. Use the built-in tests that ksh provides, something like this:



              #!/bin/ksh

              for NAME in *
              do
              FOUND=no
              if [[ -d $NAME && $NAME != '.' && $NAME != '..' ]]
              then
              for SUBNAME in $NAME/*
              do
              if [[ -d $SUBNAME ]]
              then
              FOUND=yes
              break
              fi
              done
              if [[ $FOUND == no ]]
              then
              echo Found only files in $NAME
              fi
              fi
              done


              That little script looks in all the directories in the current directory, and tells you if they only contain files, no sub-directories.






              share|improve this answer




























                1














                You don't need to use awk at all. Use the built-in tests that ksh provides, something like this:



                #!/bin/ksh

                for NAME in *
                do
                FOUND=no
                if [[ -d $NAME && $NAME != '.' && $NAME != '..' ]]
                then
                for SUBNAME in $NAME/*
                do
                if [[ -d $SUBNAME ]]
                then
                FOUND=yes
                break
                fi
                done
                if [[ $FOUND == no ]]
                then
                echo Found only files in $NAME
                fi
                fi
                done


                That little script looks in all the directories in the current directory, and tells you if they only contain files, no sub-directories.






                share|improve this answer


























                  1












                  1








                  1







                  You don't need to use awk at all. Use the built-in tests that ksh provides, something like this:



                  #!/bin/ksh

                  for NAME in *
                  do
                  FOUND=no
                  if [[ -d $NAME && $NAME != '.' && $NAME != '..' ]]
                  then
                  for SUBNAME in $NAME/*
                  do
                  if [[ -d $SUBNAME ]]
                  then
                  FOUND=yes
                  break
                  fi
                  done
                  if [[ $FOUND == no ]]
                  then
                  echo Found only files in $NAME
                  fi
                  fi
                  done


                  That little script looks in all the directories in the current directory, and tells you if they only contain files, no sub-directories.






                  share|improve this answer













                  You don't need to use awk at all. Use the built-in tests that ksh provides, something like this:



                  #!/bin/ksh

                  for NAME in *
                  do
                  FOUND=no
                  if [[ -d $NAME && $NAME != '.' && $NAME != '..' ]]
                  then
                  for SUBNAME in $NAME/*
                  do
                  if [[ -d $SUBNAME ]]
                  then
                  FOUND=yes
                  break
                  fi
                  done
                  if [[ $FOUND == no ]]
                  then
                  echo Found only files in $NAME
                  fi
                  fi
                  done


                  That little script looks in all the directories in the current directory, and tells you if they only contain files, no sub-directories.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Mar 20 '13 at 16:44









                  Bruce EdigerBruce Ediger

                  35k566119




                  35k566119

























                      9














                      If you are able to use find and if you are working on a "normal Unix filesystem" (that is, as defined in find(1) under -noleaf option description), then the following command can be used:



                      find . -type d -links 2


                      Each directory has at least 2 names (hard links): . and its name. Its subdirectories, if any, will have a .. pointing to the parent directory, so a directory with N subdirectories will have hard link count equal to N+2. Thus, searching for directories with hard link count equal to 2, we search for directories with N=0 subdirectories.



                      So, if you can use find, this is arguably the fastest method and obviously superior to in-shell loops over the directory contents stat()'ing each of its members.






                      share|improve this answer
























                      • This doesn't seem to work if the directory contains any files.

                        – user394
                        Sep 26 '18 at 0:58






                      • 1





                        It's not about entries in the directory listing, it's about hard links referring to the directory's inode. For example, if /some/directory has inode #12345678, if it has no sub-directories, there will be exactly 2 hard links to that inode: /some/directory/. and /some/directory. It works whether or not there are any files in the directory.

                        – telcoM
                        Jan 28 at 13:05











                      • Worth mentioning that BTRFS is not a "normal Unix filesystem" in this respect: directories always have a link count of 1, unfortunately. (But . and foo/.. do have the same inode number.)

                        – Peter Cordes
                        Jan 29 at 5:04
















                      9














                      If you are able to use find and if you are working on a "normal Unix filesystem" (that is, as defined in find(1) under -noleaf option description), then the following command can be used:



                      find . -type d -links 2


                      Each directory has at least 2 names (hard links): . and its name. Its subdirectories, if any, will have a .. pointing to the parent directory, so a directory with N subdirectories will have hard link count equal to N+2. Thus, searching for directories with hard link count equal to 2, we search for directories with N=0 subdirectories.



                      So, if you can use find, this is arguably the fastest method and obviously superior to in-shell loops over the directory contents stat()'ing each of its members.






                      share|improve this answer
























                      • This doesn't seem to work if the directory contains any files.

                        – user394
                        Sep 26 '18 at 0:58






                      • 1





                        It's not about entries in the directory listing, it's about hard links referring to the directory's inode. For example, if /some/directory has inode #12345678, if it has no sub-directories, there will be exactly 2 hard links to that inode: /some/directory/. and /some/directory. It works whether or not there are any files in the directory.

                        – telcoM
                        Jan 28 at 13:05











                      • Worth mentioning that BTRFS is not a "normal Unix filesystem" in this respect: directories always have a link count of 1, unfortunately. (But . and foo/.. do have the same inode number.)

                        – Peter Cordes
                        Jan 29 at 5:04














                      9












                      9








                      9







                      If you are able to use find and if you are working on a "normal Unix filesystem" (that is, as defined in find(1) under -noleaf option description), then the following command can be used:



                      find . -type d -links 2


                      Each directory has at least 2 names (hard links): . and its name. Its subdirectories, if any, will have a .. pointing to the parent directory, so a directory with N subdirectories will have hard link count equal to N+2. Thus, searching for directories with hard link count equal to 2, we search for directories with N=0 subdirectories.



                      So, if you can use find, this is arguably the fastest method and obviously superior to in-shell loops over the directory contents stat()'ing each of its members.






                      share|improve this answer













                      If you are able to use find and if you are working on a "normal Unix filesystem" (that is, as defined in find(1) under -noleaf option description), then the following command can be used:



                      find . -type d -links 2


                      Each directory has at least 2 names (hard links): . and its name. Its subdirectories, if any, will have a .. pointing to the parent directory, so a directory with N subdirectories will have hard link count equal to N+2. Thus, searching for directories with hard link count equal to 2, we search for directories with N=0 subdirectories.



                      So, if you can use find, this is arguably the fastest method and obviously superior to in-shell loops over the directory contents stat()'ing each of its members.







                      share|improve this answer












                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer










                      answered May 18 '15 at 3:28









                      intelfxintelfx

                      3,0991227




                      3,0991227













                      • This doesn't seem to work if the directory contains any files.

                        – user394
                        Sep 26 '18 at 0:58






                      • 1





                        It's not about entries in the directory listing, it's about hard links referring to the directory's inode. For example, if /some/directory has inode #12345678, if it has no sub-directories, there will be exactly 2 hard links to that inode: /some/directory/. and /some/directory. It works whether or not there are any files in the directory.

                        – telcoM
                        Jan 28 at 13:05











                      • Worth mentioning that BTRFS is not a "normal Unix filesystem" in this respect: directories always have a link count of 1, unfortunately. (But . and foo/.. do have the same inode number.)

                        – Peter Cordes
                        Jan 29 at 5:04



















                      • This doesn't seem to work if the directory contains any files.

                        – user394
                        Sep 26 '18 at 0:58






                      • 1





                        It's not about entries in the directory listing, it's about hard links referring to the directory's inode. For example, if /some/directory has inode #12345678, if it has no sub-directories, there will be exactly 2 hard links to that inode: /some/directory/. and /some/directory. It works whether or not there are any files in the directory.

                        – telcoM
                        Jan 28 at 13:05











                      • Worth mentioning that BTRFS is not a "normal Unix filesystem" in this respect: directories always have a link count of 1, unfortunately. (But . and foo/.. do have the same inode number.)

                        – Peter Cordes
                        Jan 29 at 5:04

















                      This doesn't seem to work if the directory contains any files.

                      – user394
                      Sep 26 '18 at 0:58





                      This doesn't seem to work if the directory contains any files.

                      – user394
                      Sep 26 '18 at 0:58




                      1




                      1





                      It's not about entries in the directory listing, it's about hard links referring to the directory's inode. For example, if /some/directory has inode #12345678, if it has no sub-directories, there will be exactly 2 hard links to that inode: /some/directory/. and /some/directory. It works whether or not there are any files in the directory.

                      – telcoM
                      Jan 28 at 13:05





                      It's not about entries in the directory listing, it's about hard links referring to the directory's inode. For example, if /some/directory has inode #12345678, if it has no sub-directories, there will be exactly 2 hard links to that inode: /some/directory/. and /some/directory. It works whether or not there are any files in the directory.

                      – telcoM
                      Jan 28 at 13:05













                      Worth mentioning that BTRFS is not a "normal Unix filesystem" in this respect: directories always have a link count of 1, unfortunately. (But . and foo/.. do have the same inode number.)

                      – Peter Cordes
                      Jan 29 at 5:04





                      Worth mentioning that BTRFS is not a "normal Unix filesystem" in this respect: directories always have a link count of 1, unfortunately. (But . and foo/.. do have the same inode number.)

                      – Peter Cordes
                      Jan 29 at 5:04











                      3














                      */ matches the subdirectories of the current directory. This includes symbolic links to directories, which you may or may not desire.



                      In ksh93, adding ~(N) at the beginning of the pattern makes it expand to the empty list if there is no match. Without this, the pattern remains unchanged if there is no match.



                      The following ksh93 function lists the subdirectories of the current directories that do not contain any subdirectory or link to a directory.



                      list_leaf_directories () {
                      local FIGNORE='.?(.)' # don't ignore dot files
                      local d
                      for d in */; do
                      [[ -L $d ]] || continue; # skip symbolic links
                      set -- ~(N)"$d"/*/
                      if ((!$#)); then echo "$d"; fi
                      done
                      done





                      share|improve this answer






























                        3














                        */ matches the subdirectories of the current directory. This includes symbolic links to directories, which you may or may not desire.



                        In ksh93, adding ~(N) at the beginning of the pattern makes it expand to the empty list if there is no match. Without this, the pattern remains unchanged if there is no match.



                        The following ksh93 function lists the subdirectories of the current directories that do not contain any subdirectory or link to a directory.



                        list_leaf_directories () {
                        local FIGNORE='.?(.)' # don't ignore dot files
                        local d
                        for d in */; do
                        [[ -L $d ]] || continue; # skip symbolic links
                        set -- ~(N)"$d"/*/
                        if ((!$#)); then echo "$d"; fi
                        done
                        done





                        share|improve this answer




























                          3












                          3








                          3







                          */ matches the subdirectories of the current directory. This includes symbolic links to directories, which you may or may not desire.



                          In ksh93, adding ~(N) at the beginning of the pattern makes it expand to the empty list if there is no match. Without this, the pattern remains unchanged if there is no match.



                          The following ksh93 function lists the subdirectories of the current directories that do not contain any subdirectory or link to a directory.



                          list_leaf_directories () {
                          local FIGNORE='.?(.)' # don't ignore dot files
                          local d
                          for d in */; do
                          [[ -L $d ]] || continue; # skip symbolic links
                          set -- ~(N)"$d"/*/
                          if ((!$#)); then echo "$d"; fi
                          done
                          done





                          share|improve this answer















                          */ matches the subdirectories of the current directory. This includes symbolic links to directories, which you may or may not desire.



                          In ksh93, adding ~(N) at the beginning of the pattern makes it expand to the empty list if there is no match. Without this, the pattern remains unchanged if there is no match.



                          The following ksh93 function lists the subdirectories of the current directories that do not contain any subdirectory or link to a directory.



                          list_leaf_directories () {
                          local FIGNORE='.?(.)' # don't ignore dot files
                          local d
                          for d in */; do
                          [[ -L $d ]] || continue; # skip symbolic links
                          set -- ~(N)"$d"/*/
                          if ((!$#)); then echo "$d"; fi
                          done
                          done






                          share|improve this answer














                          share|improve this answer



                          share|improve this answer








                          edited Jan 28 at 17:38









                          Stéphane Chazelas

                          304k57573927




                          304k57573927










                          answered Mar 21 '13 at 1:01









                          GillesGilles

                          535k12810821599




                          535k12810821599























                              0














                              if I am not misunderstanding you, you only want to find files in the directory not the subdirectories. If this is your intention, here is the solution



                              find . -type f


                              if you want to find other than regular files (like block device files, character device files etc) then see the man page for find command and look for the type keyword on that page. You will see different filetypes, including regular files and directories etc.



                              Hope this is what you are looking for






                              share|improve this answer
























                              • No, that's not the question at all. It's reasonably clear once you s/catalogue/directory/g. Nat Kup is looking for directories that don't contain subdirectories.

                                – Gilles
                                Mar 20 '13 at 23:12
















                              0














                              if I am not misunderstanding you, you only want to find files in the directory not the subdirectories. If this is your intention, here is the solution



                              find . -type f


                              if you want to find other than regular files (like block device files, character device files etc) then see the man page for find command and look for the type keyword on that page. You will see different filetypes, including regular files and directories etc.



                              Hope this is what you are looking for






                              share|improve this answer
























                              • No, that's not the question at all. It's reasonably clear once you s/catalogue/directory/g. Nat Kup is looking for directories that don't contain subdirectories.

                                – Gilles
                                Mar 20 '13 at 23:12














                              0












                              0








                              0







                              if I am not misunderstanding you, you only want to find files in the directory not the subdirectories. If this is your intention, here is the solution



                              find . -type f


                              if you want to find other than regular files (like block device files, character device files etc) then see the man page for find command and look for the type keyword on that page. You will see different filetypes, including regular files and directories etc.



                              Hope this is what you are looking for






                              share|improve this answer













                              if I am not misunderstanding you, you only want to find files in the directory not the subdirectories. If this is your intention, here is the solution



                              find . -type f


                              if you want to find other than regular files (like block device files, character device files etc) then see the man page for find command and look for the type keyword on that page. You will see different filetypes, including regular files and directories etc.



                              Hope this is what you are looking for







                              share|improve this answer












                              share|improve this answer



                              share|improve this answer










                              answered Mar 20 '13 at 16:44









                              MelBurslanMelBurslan

                              5,30011533




                              5,30011533













                              • No, that's not the question at all. It's reasonably clear once you s/catalogue/directory/g. Nat Kup is looking for directories that don't contain subdirectories.

                                – Gilles
                                Mar 20 '13 at 23:12



















                              • No, that's not the question at all. It's reasonably clear once you s/catalogue/directory/g. Nat Kup is looking for directories that don't contain subdirectories.

                                – Gilles
                                Mar 20 '13 at 23:12

















                              No, that's not the question at all. It's reasonably clear once you s/catalogue/directory/g. Nat Kup is looking for directories that don't contain subdirectories.

                              – Gilles
                              Mar 20 '13 at 23:12





                              No, that's not the question at all. It's reasonably clear once you s/catalogue/directory/g. Nat Kup is looking for directories that don't contain subdirectories.

                              – Gilles
                              Mar 20 '13 at 23:12


















                              draft saved

                              draft discarded




















































                              Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!


                              • 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.




                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              StackExchange.ready(
                              function () {
                              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f68577%2ffind-directories-that-do-not-contain-subdirectories%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                              }
                              );

                              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







                              Popular posts from this blog

                              How to make a Squid Proxy server?

                              Is this a new Fibonacci Identity?

                              19世紀