Category talk:Filesystem

From The iPhone Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

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. --iAdam1n (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/, /Applications/, and /Applications/ 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)
Yeah that would be fine. I think we should delete all pages that have children, however can stay etc but remove children section. Does that sound fair? You may remove all that I marked to delete as I was the one who made them. --iAdam1n (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to keep them until we reach a consensus on what to do here. As for what the other admins will do, that's up to them. --5urd (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah sure. --iAdam1n (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


I was wondering, we have a couple of Applications in this category from after jailbreak. Should this not just be stock firmware filesystem? --iAdam1n (talk) 21:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the category tag for the filesystem can be removed if the page name doesn't contain the full path and the page doesn't have all these parent and child folders mentioned, in other words, if it's describing a normal application. --http (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)