Category talk:Filesystem

Firmware Folder Structure

Does it make sense to recreate the iOS folder structure and list every file and subfolder of every device? I think it's allot of effort to maintain and with iOS 5 upcoming I also foresee numerous changes. Having different firmwares for the devices (2g 3.X, 3G 4.X, 3GS 5.X, ...) makes it even harder I think. Just a thought.--M2m 21:00, 10 September 2011 (MDT)

I'll second that (though I haven't seen iOS 5's guts yet). Some notable files (e.g. /private/etc/fstab) are all right though. --Dialexio 22:30, 10 September 2011 (MDT)

I agree. I also find it very annoying that many Apps' pages got moved to some strange page name, just to match some file structure. I would prefer to have the Apps under their original name. If a page for some file structure infos is really needed, then this might get added additionally to either the App's page or a separate page. And if all agree to this change, how should we do this transition in detail? Maybe a page File Structure with all aggregated infos or something like this? --http 10:35, 11 September 2011 (MDT)

I would keep the filesystem structure (mixing contents from every version) but link to "file pages" with their canonical name: this way one can easily look up the purpose of a file/folder. (example: remove "iOS4+" from /private/var/Keybags, the power user working on a 3.x system won't find it on their device but will know that that folder has a specific purpose in "other" versions.) IMHO, the attempt to accurately describe the filesystem has historical and practical value for this wiki. --Ryccardo 14:21, 13 September 2011 (MDT)

After looking at the category page now, we can see the huge number of useless pages (sorry for the mass-edit). I suggest that we create one new page that lists the entire file structure and delete all others, except those that have real useful information in it (besides the parent/children infos). --http (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we should just delete the whole lot. Maybe keep kernel page but no need to have all the names. I think one page is ok but it will get out of hand. There are lots of pages currently that not many of us know what they are. --adaminsull (talk) 23:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You appear to be contradicting yourself. You created pages for all the folders of the tzcode package, yet you are for nuking the filesystem pages? --5urd (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Like Alex said, I think we should keep the notable pages (e.g. /private/etc/fstab), but not make pages for EVERYTHING. Having links to non-notable files is fine IMHO, but unless the file itself is notable, we don't need it. Maintaining the entire filesystem from release to release is a huge pain and doesn't need to be done, but there are important/notable files on the system.
As for applications, I say we do something like this (using "App Store" for example): Have /Applications/AppStore.app, /Applications/AppStore~iphone.app, and /Applications/AppStore~ipad.app redirect to App Store. As for unimportant things like the tzcode> package and others, maybe we could put them in a special place? Maybe put the tzcode in a page called APT/tzcode? --5urd (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)