for loop in folders with n character in their names

Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP up vote
9
down vote
favorite
I have some folders with n character it their names.
for example:
$ ls
''$'n''Test'
Thats refer to a folder with Test name and a empty line before its name.
So when I run some scripts like this, in its parent directory:
while IFS= read -r d; do
rmdir $d
done < <(find * -type d)
It shows:
rmdir: failed to remove '': No such file or directory
rmdir: failed to remove 'Test': No such file or directory
Because it runs twice, once on n and the another on Test, because the folder name has two lines.
So how can I solve this issue such that, script knows nTest is just one folder?
command-line bash scripts
 |Â
show 7 more comments
up vote
9
down vote
favorite
I have some folders with n character it their names.
for example:
$ ls
''$'n''Test'
Thats refer to a folder with Test name and a empty line before its name.
So when I run some scripts like this, in its parent directory:
while IFS= read -r d; do
rmdir $d
done < <(find * -type d)
It shows:
rmdir: failed to remove '': No such file or directory
rmdir: failed to remove 'Test': No such file or directory
Because it runs twice, once on n and the another on Test, because the folder name has two lines.
So how can I solve this issue such that, script knows nTest is just one folder?
command-line bash scripts
3
You need to use find's-print0directive, and the-dread option. See stackoverflow.com/a/40189667/7552
â glenn jackman
Jun 4 at 22:27
1
@glennjackman Please answer!
â dessert
Jun 4 at 22:27
@glennjackman Thanks for your reply butfind * -type d -print0 | while IFS= read -d '' file ; do rmdir $file ; donecommand have this outputrmdir: failed to remove 'Test': No such file or directory.
â Tara S Volpe
Jun 4 at 22:34
5
You must quote the variable :rmdir "$file"
â glenn jackman
Jun 4 at 22:40
1
@glennjackman Just post this as answer. It's a proper solution and besides comments are not the best place for that. Upvote already implied :)
â Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
Jun 5 at 0:56
 |Â
show 7 more comments
up vote
9
down vote
favorite
up vote
9
down vote
favorite
I have some folders with n character it their names.
for example:
$ ls
''$'n''Test'
Thats refer to a folder with Test name and a empty line before its name.
So when I run some scripts like this, in its parent directory:
while IFS= read -r d; do
rmdir $d
done < <(find * -type d)
It shows:
rmdir: failed to remove '': No such file or directory
rmdir: failed to remove 'Test': No such file or directory
Because it runs twice, once on n and the another on Test, because the folder name has two lines.
So how can I solve this issue such that, script knows nTest is just one folder?
command-line bash scripts
I have some folders with n character it their names.
for example:
$ ls
''$'n''Test'
Thats refer to a folder with Test name and a empty line before its name.
So when I run some scripts like this, in its parent directory:
while IFS= read -r d; do
rmdir $d
done < <(find * -type d)
It shows:
rmdir: failed to remove '': No such file or directory
rmdir: failed to remove 'Test': No such file or directory
Because it runs twice, once on n and the another on Test, because the folder name has two lines.
So how can I solve this issue such that, script knows nTest is just one folder?
command-line bash scripts
asked Jun 4 at 22:21
Tara S Volpe
18017
18017
3
You need to use find's-print0directive, and the-dread option. See stackoverflow.com/a/40189667/7552
â glenn jackman
Jun 4 at 22:27
1
@glennjackman Please answer!
â dessert
Jun 4 at 22:27
@glennjackman Thanks for your reply butfind * -type d -print0 | while IFS= read -d '' file ; do rmdir $file ; donecommand have this outputrmdir: failed to remove 'Test': No such file or directory.
â Tara S Volpe
Jun 4 at 22:34
5
You must quote the variable :rmdir "$file"
â glenn jackman
Jun 4 at 22:40
1
@glennjackman Just post this as answer. It's a proper solution and besides comments are not the best place for that. Upvote already implied :)
â Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
Jun 5 at 0:56
 |Â
show 7 more comments
3
You need to use find's-print0directive, and the-dread option. See stackoverflow.com/a/40189667/7552
â glenn jackman
Jun 4 at 22:27
1
@glennjackman Please answer!
â dessert
Jun 4 at 22:27
@glennjackman Thanks for your reply butfind * -type d -print0 | while IFS= read -d '' file ; do rmdir $file ; donecommand have this outputrmdir: failed to remove 'Test': No such file or directory.
â Tara S Volpe
Jun 4 at 22:34
5
You must quote the variable :rmdir "$file"
â glenn jackman
Jun 4 at 22:40
1
@glennjackman Just post this as answer. It's a proper solution and besides comments are not the best place for that. Upvote already implied :)
â Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
Jun 5 at 0:56
3
3
You need to use find's
-print0 directive, and the -d read option. See stackoverflow.com/a/40189667/7552â glenn jackman
Jun 4 at 22:27
You need to use find's
-print0 directive, and the -d read option. See stackoverflow.com/a/40189667/7552â glenn jackman
Jun 4 at 22:27
1
1
@glennjackman Please answer!
â dessert
Jun 4 at 22:27
@glennjackman Please answer!
â dessert
Jun 4 at 22:27
@glennjackman Thanks for your reply but
find * -type d -print0 | while IFS= read -d '' file ; do rmdir $file ; done command have this output rmdir: failed to remove 'Test': No such file or directory.â Tara S Volpe
Jun 4 at 22:34
@glennjackman Thanks for your reply but
find * -type d -print0 | while IFS= read -d '' file ; do rmdir $file ; done command have this output rmdir: failed to remove 'Test': No such file or directory.â Tara S Volpe
Jun 4 at 22:34
5
5
You must quote the variable :
rmdir "$file"â glenn jackman
Jun 4 at 22:40
You must quote the variable :
rmdir "$file"â glenn jackman
Jun 4 at 22:40
1
1
@glennjackman Just post this as answer. It's a proper solution and besides comments are not the best place for that. Upvote already implied :)
â Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
Jun 5 at 0:56
@glennjackman Just post this as answer. It's a proper solution and besides comments are not the best place for that. Upvote already implied :)
â Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
Jun 5 at 0:56
 |Â
show 7 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
12
down vote
accepted
You've only single command there, so it's sufficient to call find with -exec flag calling rmdir:
find -depth -type d -exec rmdir ;
Or use the -delete option as in find -type d -delete, but it won't work with non-empty directories. For that you will also need -empty flag. Note also, -delete implies -depth so that may be skipped. Thus another viable alternative that keeps everything as one process:
find -type d -empty -delete
If the directory not empty, use rm -rf ;. To isolate only directories with n in filename we can combine bash's ANSI-C quoting $'...' with -name opption:
find -type d -name $'*n*' -empty -delete
POSIX-ly, we could handle it this way:
find -depth -type d -name "$(printf '*n*' )" -exec rmdir ;
It is worth mentioning that if your goal is removal of directories, then -delete is sufficient, however if you want to execute a command on directory then -exec is most appropriate.
See also
- How to delete directories based on
findoutput? - find -delete does not delete non-empty directories
2
⦠userm -rfwith care. ;P DoesnâÂÂtfindhave a-deleteoption btw? It deletes empty directories and throws errors for non-empty ones likermdirâ might be less expensive.
â dessert
Jun 4 at 22:41
3
@dessert It does and I added that in, but-deletewon't remove non-empty directories. Hence, the careful use ofrm -rf
â Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
Jun 4 at 22:47
6
Always dry-run suchfindcommands without any destructive payload (i.e. remove the-deleteor-exec whatever ;) to check if the list of affected files is actually correct and does not contain stuff that should not get deleted...
â Byte Commander
Jun 4 at 22:50
2
This is askubuntu.com so we can assume GNUfind. Use-exec rmdir +to batch multiple args onto onermdircommand line. And BTW "but it won't work with non-empty directories." applies tormdiras well, so that's not actually a difference from-delete. It's a difference fromrm -r.
â Peter Cordes
Jun 5 at 1:01
2
find -type d -empty -delete(-deleteimplies-depth).
â Kevin
Jun 5 at 2:51
 |Â
show 7 more comments
up vote
10
down vote
You could use shell globs instead of find:
for d in */ ; do
rmdir "$d"
done
The shell glob */ matches all folders in the current directory. This for-loop construction takes care of correct word splitting automatically.
Note that depending on your shell options, this might ignore hidden folders (name starting with a .). That behaviour can be changed to match all files for the current session using the command shopt -s dotglob.
Also don't forget to always quote your variables.
the glob will only find files/directories in the current directory, not recursively likefinddoes
â ilkkachu
Jun 5 at 9:54
1
You are right @ilkkachu. That could be changed by enabling the globstar shell optionshopt -s globstarand using a**/*/glob instead.
â Byte Commander
Jun 5 at 10:26
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
Both answers written so far call rmdir once per directory, but as rmdir can take multiple arguments I wonder: IsnâÂÂt there a more efficient way?
One could simply do
rmdir */
and thatâÂÂs definitely the easiest and most efficient way, but it may throw an error in the case of many directories (see What is the maximum length of command line arguments in gnome-terminal?). If you want this approach to work recursively, enable the globstar shell option with shopt -s globstar and use **/*/ instead of */.
With GNU find (and if we donâÂÂt just want to use -delete), we could do
find -depth -type d -exec rmdir +
which builts the command line âÂÂin much the same way that xargs builds its command linesâ (man find). Substitute -depth for -maxdepth 1 if you donâÂÂt want it to work recursively.
A third and IMO brilliant way is explained by steeldriver in this answer:
printf '%s' */ | xargs -0 rmdir
This uses the shell builtin printf to build a zero-delimited argument list, this list is then piped to xargs which calls rmdir exactly as often as necessary. You can make it work recursively with shopt -s globstar and **/*/ instead of */ as above.
2
findis recursive, but the OP's loop isn't. To replicate that behaviour, usefind -maxdepth 1 -type d -exec rmdir +. (-depthis redundant in that case.) Neat trick withprintfto emulatefind -print0, I hadn't seen that before.
â Peter Cordes
Jun 5 at 9:08
1
Oh! I saw thelsand thewhileloop, I missed that they were redirecting from a process substitution withfindinstead of pipinglsinto the loop and just not showing it for some reason. Thatfind *is really buried. Yes it's recursive, and will fail if there are too many directory entries in the directory, including non-directories because it doesn't use*/.find .would be much better, becausefindis faster atstating than bash's glob expansion.
â Peter Cordes
Jun 5 at 9:15
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
12
down vote
accepted
You've only single command there, so it's sufficient to call find with -exec flag calling rmdir:
find -depth -type d -exec rmdir ;
Or use the -delete option as in find -type d -delete, but it won't work with non-empty directories. For that you will also need -empty flag. Note also, -delete implies -depth so that may be skipped. Thus another viable alternative that keeps everything as one process:
find -type d -empty -delete
If the directory not empty, use rm -rf ;. To isolate only directories with n in filename we can combine bash's ANSI-C quoting $'...' with -name opption:
find -type d -name $'*n*' -empty -delete
POSIX-ly, we could handle it this way:
find -depth -type d -name "$(printf '*n*' )" -exec rmdir ;
It is worth mentioning that if your goal is removal of directories, then -delete is sufficient, however if you want to execute a command on directory then -exec is most appropriate.
See also
- How to delete directories based on
findoutput? - find -delete does not delete non-empty directories
2
⦠userm -rfwith care. ;P DoesnâÂÂtfindhave a-deleteoption btw? It deletes empty directories and throws errors for non-empty ones likermdirâ might be less expensive.
â dessert
Jun 4 at 22:41
3
@dessert It does and I added that in, but-deletewon't remove non-empty directories. Hence, the careful use ofrm -rf
â Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
Jun 4 at 22:47
6
Always dry-run suchfindcommands without any destructive payload (i.e. remove the-deleteor-exec whatever ;) to check if the list of affected files is actually correct and does not contain stuff that should not get deleted...
â Byte Commander
Jun 4 at 22:50
2
This is askubuntu.com so we can assume GNUfind. Use-exec rmdir +to batch multiple args onto onermdircommand line. And BTW "but it won't work with non-empty directories." applies tormdiras well, so that's not actually a difference from-delete. It's a difference fromrm -r.
â Peter Cordes
Jun 5 at 1:01
2
find -type d -empty -delete(-deleteimplies-depth).
â Kevin
Jun 5 at 2:51
 |Â
show 7 more comments
up vote
12
down vote
accepted
You've only single command there, so it's sufficient to call find with -exec flag calling rmdir:
find -depth -type d -exec rmdir ;
Or use the -delete option as in find -type d -delete, but it won't work with non-empty directories. For that you will also need -empty flag. Note also, -delete implies -depth so that may be skipped. Thus another viable alternative that keeps everything as one process:
find -type d -empty -delete
If the directory not empty, use rm -rf ;. To isolate only directories with n in filename we can combine bash's ANSI-C quoting $'...' with -name opption:
find -type d -name $'*n*' -empty -delete
POSIX-ly, we could handle it this way:
find -depth -type d -name "$(printf '*n*' )" -exec rmdir ;
It is worth mentioning that if your goal is removal of directories, then -delete is sufficient, however if you want to execute a command on directory then -exec is most appropriate.
See also
- How to delete directories based on
findoutput? - find -delete does not delete non-empty directories
2
⦠userm -rfwith care. ;P DoesnâÂÂtfindhave a-deleteoption btw? It deletes empty directories and throws errors for non-empty ones likermdirâ might be less expensive.
â dessert
Jun 4 at 22:41
3
@dessert It does and I added that in, but-deletewon't remove non-empty directories. Hence, the careful use ofrm -rf
â Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
Jun 4 at 22:47
6
Always dry-run suchfindcommands without any destructive payload (i.e. remove the-deleteor-exec whatever ;) to check if the list of affected files is actually correct and does not contain stuff that should not get deleted...
â Byte Commander
Jun 4 at 22:50
2
This is askubuntu.com so we can assume GNUfind. Use-exec rmdir +to batch multiple args onto onermdircommand line. And BTW "but it won't work with non-empty directories." applies tormdiras well, so that's not actually a difference from-delete. It's a difference fromrm -r.
â Peter Cordes
Jun 5 at 1:01
2
find -type d -empty -delete(-deleteimplies-depth).
â Kevin
Jun 5 at 2:51
 |Â
show 7 more comments
up vote
12
down vote
accepted
up vote
12
down vote
accepted
You've only single command there, so it's sufficient to call find with -exec flag calling rmdir:
find -depth -type d -exec rmdir ;
Or use the -delete option as in find -type d -delete, but it won't work with non-empty directories. For that you will also need -empty flag. Note also, -delete implies -depth so that may be skipped. Thus another viable alternative that keeps everything as one process:
find -type d -empty -delete
If the directory not empty, use rm -rf ;. To isolate only directories with n in filename we can combine bash's ANSI-C quoting $'...' with -name opption:
find -type d -name $'*n*' -empty -delete
POSIX-ly, we could handle it this way:
find -depth -type d -name "$(printf '*n*' )" -exec rmdir ;
It is worth mentioning that if your goal is removal of directories, then -delete is sufficient, however if you want to execute a command on directory then -exec is most appropriate.
See also
- How to delete directories based on
findoutput? - find -delete does not delete non-empty directories
You've only single command there, so it's sufficient to call find with -exec flag calling rmdir:
find -depth -type d -exec rmdir ;
Or use the -delete option as in find -type d -delete, but it won't work with non-empty directories. For that you will also need -empty flag. Note also, -delete implies -depth so that may be skipped. Thus another viable alternative that keeps everything as one process:
find -type d -empty -delete
If the directory not empty, use rm -rf ;. To isolate only directories with n in filename we can combine bash's ANSI-C quoting $'...' with -name opption:
find -type d -name $'*n*' -empty -delete
POSIX-ly, we could handle it this way:
find -depth -type d -name "$(printf '*n*' )" -exec rmdir ;
It is worth mentioning that if your goal is removal of directories, then -delete is sufficient, however if you want to execute a command on directory then -exec is most appropriate.
See also
- How to delete directories based on
findoutput? - find -delete does not delete non-empty directories
edited Jun 5 at 17:49
answered Jun 4 at 22:40
Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
63.8k9127273
63.8k9127273
2
⦠userm -rfwith care. ;P DoesnâÂÂtfindhave a-deleteoption btw? It deletes empty directories and throws errors for non-empty ones likermdirâ might be less expensive.
â dessert
Jun 4 at 22:41
3
@dessert It does and I added that in, but-deletewon't remove non-empty directories. Hence, the careful use ofrm -rf
â Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
Jun 4 at 22:47
6
Always dry-run suchfindcommands without any destructive payload (i.e. remove the-deleteor-exec whatever ;) to check if the list of affected files is actually correct and does not contain stuff that should not get deleted...
â Byte Commander
Jun 4 at 22:50
2
This is askubuntu.com so we can assume GNUfind. Use-exec rmdir +to batch multiple args onto onermdircommand line. And BTW "but it won't work with non-empty directories." applies tormdiras well, so that's not actually a difference from-delete. It's a difference fromrm -r.
â Peter Cordes
Jun 5 at 1:01
2
find -type d -empty -delete(-deleteimplies-depth).
â Kevin
Jun 5 at 2:51
 |Â
show 7 more comments
2
⦠userm -rfwith care. ;P DoesnâÂÂtfindhave a-deleteoption btw? It deletes empty directories and throws errors for non-empty ones likermdirâ might be less expensive.
â dessert
Jun 4 at 22:41
3
@dessert It does and I added that in, but-deletewon't remove non-empty directories. Hence, the careful use ofrm -rf
â Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
Jun 4 at 22:47
6
Always dry-run suchfindcommands without any destructive payload (i.e. remove the-deleteor-exec whatever ;) to check if the list of affected files is actually correct and does not contain stuff that should not get deleted...
â Byte Commander
Jun 4 at 22:50
2
This is askubuntu.com so we can assume GNUfind. Use-exec rmdir +to batch multiple args onto onermdircommand line. And BTW "but it won't work with non-empty directories." applies tormdiras well, so that's not actually a difference from-delete. It's a difference fromrm -r.
â Peter Cordes
Jun 5 at 1:01
2
find -type d -empty -delete(-deleteimplies-depth).
â Kevin
Jun 5 at 2:51
2
2
⦠use
rm -rf with care. ;P DoesnâÂÂt find have a -delete option btw? It deletes empty directories and throws errors for non-empty ones like rmdir â might be less expensive.â dessert
Jun 4 at 22:41
⦠use
rm -rf with care. ;P DoesnâÂÂt find have a -delete option btw? It deletes empty directories and throws errors for non-empty ones like rmdir â might be less expensive.â dessert
Jun 4 at 22:41
3
3
@dessert It does and I added that in, but
-delete won't remove non-empty directories. Hence, the careful use of rm -rfâ Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
Jun 4 at 22:47
@dessert It does and I added that in, but
-delete won't remove non-empty directories. Hence, the careful use of rm -rfâ Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
Jun 4 at 22:47
6
6
Always dry-run such
find commands without any destructive payload (i.e. remove the -delete or -exec whatever ;) to check if the list of affected files is actually correct and does not contain stuff that should not get deleted...â Byte Commander
Jun 4 at 22:50
Always dry-run such
find commands without any destructive payload (i.e. remove the -delete or -exec whatever ;) to check if the list of affected files is actually correct and does not contain stuff that should not get deleted...â Byte Commander
Jun 4 at 22:50
2
2
This is askubuntu.com so we can assume GNU
find. Use -exec rmdir + to batch multiple args onto one rmdir command line. And BTW "but it won't work with non-empty directories." applies to rmdir as well, so that's not actually a difference from -delete. It's a difference from rm -r.â Peter Cordes
Jun 5 at 1:01
This is askubuntu.com so we can assume GNU
find. Use -exec rmdir + to batch multiple args onto one rmdir command line. And BTW "but it won't work with non-empty directories." applies to rmdir as well, so that's not actually a difference from -delete. It's a difference from rm -r.â Peter Cordes
Jun 5 at 1:01
2
2
find -type d -empty -delete (-delete implies -depth).â Kevin
Jun 5 at 2:51
find -type d -empty -delete (-delete implies -depth).â Kevin
Jun 5 at 2:51
 |Â
show 7 more comments
up vote
10
down vote
You could use shell globs instead of find:
for d in */ ; do
rmdir "$d"
done
The shell glob */ matches all folders in the current directory. This for-loop construction takes care of correct word splitting automatically.
Note that depending on your shell options, this might ignore hidden folders (name starting with a .). That behaviour can be changed to match all files for the current session using the command shopt -s dotglob.
Also don't forget to always quote your variables.
the glob will only find files/directories in the current directory, not recursively likefinddoes
â ilkkachu
Jun 5 at 9:54
1
You are right @ilkkachu. That could be changed by enabling the globstar shell optionshopt -s globstarand using a**/*/glob instead.
â Byte Commander
Jun 5 at 10:26
add a comment |Â
up vote
10
down vote
You could use shell globs instead of find:
for d in */ ; do
rmdir "$d"
done
The shell glob */ matches all folders in the current directory. This for-loop construction takes care of correct word splitting automatically.
Note that depending on your shell options, this might ignore hidden folders (name starting with a .). That behaviour can be changed to match all files for the current session using the command shopt -s dotglob.
Also don't forget to always quote your variables.
the glob will only find files/directories in the current directory, not recursively likefinddoes
â ilkkachu
Jun 5 at 9:54
1
You are right @ilkkachu. That could be changed by enabling the globstar shell optionshopt -s globstarand using a**/*/glob instead.
â Byte Commander
Jun 5 at 10:26
add a comment |Â
up vote
10
down vote
up vote
10
down vote
You could use shell globs instead of find:
for d in */ ; do
rmdir "$d"
done
The shell glob */ matches all folders in the current directory. This for-loop construction takes care of correct word splitting automatically.
Note that depending on your shell options, this might ignore hidden folders (name starting with a .). That behaviour can be changed to match all files for the current session using the command shopt -s dotglob.
Also don't forget to always quote your variables.
You could use shell globs instead of find:
for d in */ ; do
rmdir "$d"
done
The shell glob */ matches all folders in the current directory. This for-loop construction takes care of correct word splitting automatically.
Note that depending on your shell options, this might ignore hidden folders (name starting with a .). That behaviour can be changed to match all files for the current session using the command shopt -s dotglob.
Also don't forget to always quote your variables.
answered Jun 4 at 22:36
Byte Commander
58k26155263
58k26155263
the glob will only find files/directories in the current directory, not recursively likefinddoes
â ilkkachu
Jun 5 at 9:54
1
You are right @ilkkachu. That could be changed by enabling the globstar shell optionshopt -s globstarand using a**/*/glob instead.
â Byte Commander
Jun 5 at 10:26
add a comment |Â
the glob will only find files/directories in the current directory, not recursively likefinddoes
â ilkkachu
Jun 5 at 9:54
1
You are right @ilkkachu. That could be changed by enabling the globstar shell optionshopt -s globstarand using a**/*/glob instead.
â Byte Commander
Jun 5 at 10:26
the glob will only find files/directories in the current directory, not recursively like
find doesâ ilkkachu
Jun 5 at 9:54
the glob will only find files/directories in the current directory, not recursively like
find doesâ ilkkachu
Jun 5 at 9:54
1
1
You are right @ilkkachu. That could be changed by enabling the globstar shell option
shopt -s globstar and using a **/*/ glob instead.â Byte Commander
Jun 5 at 10:26
You are right @ilkkachu. That could be changed by enabling the globstar shell option
shopt -s globstar and using a **/*/ glob instead.â Byte Commander
Jun 5 at 10:26
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
Both answers written so far call rmdir once per directory, but as rmdir can take multiple arguments I wonder: IsnâÂÂt there a more efficient way?
One could simply do
rmdir */
and thatâÂÂs definitely the easiest and most efficient way, but it may throw an error in the case of many directories (see What is the maximum length of command line arguments in gnome-terminal?). If you want this approach to work recursively, enable the globstar shell option with shopt -s globstar and use **/*/ instead of */.
With GNU find (and if we donâÂÂt just want to use -delete), we could do
find -depth -type d -exec rmdir +
which builts the command line âÂÂin much the same way that xargs builds its command linesâ (man find). Substitute -depth for -maxdepth 1 if you donâÂÂt want it to work recursively.
A third and IMO brilliant way is explained by steeldriver in this answer:
printf '%s' */ | xargs -0 rmdir
This uses the shell builtin printf to build a zero-delimited argument list, this list is then piped to xargs which calls rmdir exactly as often as necessary. You can make it work recursively with shopt -s globstar and **/*/ instead of */ as above.
2
findis recursive, but the OP's loop isn't. To replicate that behaviour, usefind -maxdepth 1 -type d -exec rmdir +. (-depthis redundant in that case.) Neat trick withprintfto emulatefind -print0, I hadn't seen that before.
â Peter Cordes
Jun 5 at 9:08
1
Oh! I saw thelsand thewhileloop, I missed that they were redirecting from a process substitution withfindinstead of pipinglsinto the loop and just not showing it for some reason. Thatfind *is really buried. Yes it's recursive, and will fail if there are too many directory entries in the directory, including non-directories because it doesn't use*/.find .would be much better, becausefindis faster atstating than bash's glob expansion.
â Peter Cordes
Jun 5 at 9:15
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
Both answers written so far call rmdir once per directory, but as rmdir can take multiple arguments I wonder: IsnâÂÂt there a more efficient way?
One could simply do
rmdir */
and thatâÂÂs definitely the easiest and most efficient way, but it may throw an error in the case of many directories (see What is the maximum length of command line arguments in gnome-terminal?). If you want this approach to work recursively, enable the globstar shell option with shopt -s globstar and use **/*/ instead of */.
With GNU find (and if we donâÂÂt just want to use -delete), we could do
find -depth -type d -exec rmdir +
which builts the command line âÂÂin much the same way that xargs builds its command linesâ (man find). Substitute -depth for -maxdepth 1 if you donâÂÂt want it to work recursively.
A third and IMO brilliant way is explained by steeldriver in this answer:
printf '%s' */ | xargs -0 rmdir
This uses the shell builtin printf to build a zero-delimited argument list, this list is then piped to xargs which calls rmdir exactly as often as necessary. You can make it work recursively with shopt -s globstar and **/*/ instead of */ as above.
2
findis recursive, but the OP's loop isn't. To replicate that behaviour, usefind -maxdepth 1 -type d -exec rmdir +. (-depthis redundant in that case.) Neat trick withprintfto emulatefind -print0, I hadn't seen that before.
â Peter Cordes
Jun 5 at 9:08
1
Oh! I saw thelsand thewhileloop, I missed that they were redirecting from a process substitution withfindinstead of pipinglsinto the loop and just not showing it for some reason. Thatfind *is really buried. Yes it's recursive, and will fail if there are too many directory entries in the directory, including non-directories because it doesn't use*/.find .would be much better, becausefindis faster atstating than bash's glob expansion.
â Peter Cordes
Jun 5 at 9:15
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
up vote
6
down vote
Both answers written so far call rmdir once per directory, but as rmdir can take multiple arguments I wonder: IsnâÂÂt there a more efficient way?
One could simply do
rmdir */
and thatâÂÂs definitely the easiest and most efficient way, but it may throw an error in the case of many directories (see What is the maximum length of command line arguments in gnome-terminal?). If you want this approach to work recursively, enable the globstar shell option with shopt -s globstar and use **/*/ instead of */.
With GNU find (and if we donâÂÂt just want to use -delete), we could do
find -depth -type d -exec rmdir +
which builts the command line âÂÂin much the same way that xargs builds its command linesâ (man find). Substitute -depth for -maxdepth 1 if you donâÂÂt want it to work recursively.
A third and IMO brilliant way is explained by steeldriver in this answer:
printf '%s' */ | xargs -0 rmdir
This uses the shell builtin printf to build a zero-delimited argument list, this list is then piped to xargs which calls rmdir exactly as often as necessary. You can make it work recursively with shopt -s globstar and **/*/ instead of */ as above.
Both answers written so far call rmdir once per directory, but as rmdir can take multiple arguments I wonder: IsnâÂÂt there a more efficient way?
One could simply do
rmdir */
and thatâÂÂs definitely the easiest and most efficient way, but it may throw an error in the case of many directories (see What is the maximum length of command line arguments in gnome-terminal?). If you want this approach to work recursively, enable the globstar shell option with shopt -s globstar and use **/*/ instead of */.
With GNU find (and if we donâÂÂt just want to use -delete), we could do
find -depth -type d -exec rmdir +
which builts the command line âÂÂin much the same way that xargs builds its command linesâ (man find). Substitute -depth for -maxdepth 1 if you donâÂÂt want it to work recursively.
A third and IMO brilliant way is explained by steeldriver in this answer:
printf '%s' */ | xargs -0 rmdir
This uses the shell builtin printf to build a zero-delimited argument list, this list is then piped to xargs which calls rmdir exactly as often as necessary. You can make it work recursively with shopt -s globstar and **/*/ instead of */ as above.
edited Jun 6 at 22:09
answered Jun 5 at 8:33
dessert
19.4k55494
19.4k55494
2
findis recursive, but the OP's loop isn't. To replicate that behaviour, usefind -maxdepth 1 -type d -exec rmdir +. (-depthis redundant in that case.) Neat trick withprintfto emulatefind -print0, I hadn't seen that before.
â Peter Cordes
Jun 5 at 9:08
1
Oh! I saw thelsand thewhileloop, I missed that they were redirecting from a process substitution withfindinstead of pipinglsinto the loop and just not showing it for some reason. Thatfind *is really buried. Yes it's recursive, and will fail if there are too many directory entries in the directory, including non-directories because it doesn't use*/.find .would be much better, becausefindis faster atstating than bash's glob expansion.
â Peter Cordes
Jun 5 at 9:15
add a comment |Â
2
findis recursive, but the OP's loop isn't. To replicate that behaviour, usefind -maxdepth 1 -type d -exec rmdir +. (-depthis redundant in that case.) Neat trick withprintfto emulatefind -print0, I hadn't seen that before.
â Peter Cordes
Jun 5 at 9:08
1
Oh! I saw thelsand thewhileloop, I missed that they were redirecting from a process substitution withfindinstead of pipinglsinto the loop and just not showing it for some reason. Thatfind *is really buried. Yes it's recursive, and will fail if there are too many directory entries in the directory, including non-directories because it doesn't use*/.find .would be much better, becausefindis faster atstating than bash's glob expansion.
â Peter Cordes
Jun 5 at 9:15
2
2
find is recursive, but the OP's loop isn't. To replicate that behaviour, use find -maxdepth 1 -type d -exec rmdir +. (-depth is redundant in that case.) Neat trick with printf to emulate find -print0, I hadn't seen that before.â Peter Cordes
Jun 5 at 9:08
find is recursive, but the OP's loop isn't. To replicate that behaviour, use find -maxdepth 1 -type d -exec rmdir +. (-depth is redundant in that case.) Neat trick with printf to emulate find -print0, I hadn't seen that before.â Peter Cordes
Jun 5 at 9:08
1
1
Oh! I saw the
ls and the while loop, I missed that they were redirecting from a process substitution with find instead of piping ls into the loop and just not showing it for some reason. That find * is really buried. Yes it's recursive, and will fail if there are too many directory entries in the directory, including non-directories because it doesn't use */. find . would be much better, because find is faster at stating than bash's glob expansion.â Peter Cordes
Jun 5 at 9:15
Oh! I saw the
ls and the while loop, I missed that they were redirecting from a process substitution with find instead of piping ls into the loop and just not showing it for some reason. That find * is really buried. Yes it's recursive, and will fail if there are too many directory entries in the directory, including non-directories because it doesn't use */. find . would be much better, because find is faster at stating than bash's glob expansion.â Peter Cordes
Jun 5 at 9:15
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e)
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom))
StackExchange.using('gps', function() StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', location: 'question_page' ); );
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
;
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faskubuntu.com%2fquestions%2f1043640%2ffor-loop-in-folders-with-n-character-in-their-names%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e)
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom))
StackExchange.using('gps', function() StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', location: 'question_page' ); );
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
;
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e)
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom))
StackExchange.using('gps', function() StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', location: 'question_page' ); );
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
;
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e)
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom))
StackExchange.using('gps', function() StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', location: 'question_page' ); );
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
;
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
);
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
3
You need to use find's
-print0directive, and the-dread option. See stackoverflow.com/a/40189667/7552â glenn jackman
Jun 4 at 22:27
1
@glennjackman Please answer!
â dessert
Jun 4 at 22:27
@glennjackman Thanks for your reply but
find * -type d -print0 | while IFS= read -d '' file ; do rmdir $file ; donecommand have this outputrmdir: failed to remove 'Test': No such file or directory.â Tara S Volpe
Jun 4 at 22:34
5
You must quote the variable :
rmdir "$file"â glenn jackman
Jun 4 at 22:40
1
@glennjackman Just post this as answer. It's a proper solution and besides comments are not the best place for that. Upvote already implied :)
â Sergiy Kolodyazhnyy
Jun 5 at 0:56