HFS+ vs UFS in DP3 quick notes

[eucci]

It's been known for a while that the MacOS is case-insensitive when it comes to filenames. This actually seems to be an issue when using MacOS X DP3 with HFS+. I was trying to compile Python1.5.2 at the command line and at the end of the build process it tries to move the generated binary 'python' into the root python-build directory where there is a subdirectory named 'Python' (with a capitol P) and fails. When I try to move this file by hand using unix commands (mv or cp), it says there is already an object there by that name -- but only the Python subdir is there, not the lowercase 'python' executable.

I'm increasingly of the opinion that case sensitivity isn't really a necessary thing, but this could be an issue to existing Unix programs people attempt to port into MacOS X's on HFS+ drives.

Also, when I installed DP3 as HFS+, I was unable to see my MacOS X Server UFS partition (on a separate drive -- the two systems cannot seem to be on the same drive, the booter gets confused) and couldn't find any mount commands to mount UFS. I haven't tried installing DP3 with UFS yet.

[Scott_H]

Hi,

UNIX is case sensitive. So I would guess that OS X will be too.

In your situation you could link the Python to python and get the result you want. Right? (or is it python to Python?)

Most often UNIX installer via make have a defined variable to set the install directory. Check the make file and see if it needs a tweek.

Scott H.

[gotterdamm]

I know when you install OS X you have a choice of formatting the drive as either UFS of HFS+. Which way would be better? I heard that UFS is faster so what would be the advantage of using HFS+? Just curious http://forums.macnn.com/cgi-bin/smile.gif

[eucci]

At this time, HFS+ volumes do not seem to be case sensative. This appears to have to do with the file system itself, not the operating system.

There is a technote for MacOS X Server http://til.info.apple.com/techinfo.nsf/artnum/n60413 that talks about working around not being able to rename 'foo' to 'Foo' on an HFS+ volume (to do this correctly, you have to rename from 'foo' to another name and then to 'Foo').

--
My main reason for using HFS+ is that I spend very little time in DP3 but still want to be able to have access to that partition under MacOS 9 (this actually saved me the other day when i misentered an IP address for MacOS X's network and had to find and open the file in MacOS 9 to edit it). I think a reason to continue using it is so that you can have Classic apps on the same drive/partition as your system. Since HFS+ is a multiforked system and UFS is not, my guess (I have not tested this) is that a classic app wouldn't save properly on a UFS disk.

[Angus_D]

From what I can gather, HFS+ doesn't support case sensitivity - as far as HFS is concerned, "Hello" and "HELLo" are the same file, whereas UFS treats them differently.

With programs designed to work under BSD, there may be some weird problems about compiling under HFS, and also some programs don't support spaces in filenames (Mac OS X and HFS do, tho).

HFS+ will probably be the main recommended filesystem in the final release, as it will mean that people can install over their current OS installation, rather than having to reformat to UFS.