Your suggested message presupposes that busybox is used on a particular distribution. That's not necessarily the case. Remember, e2fsprogs is designed for all distributions, not just for Ubuntu. If Canonical wants to make a change like that to e2fsprogs, all distributions are free to make any changes they want to a package. (At which point they own any liability if the user is clueless enough that they need that amount of hand holding, but if that information is just enough to cause them to attempt to do a file system fixup, but they then lose files because they fumble the job, that's on Ubuntu, not on me.)
Or perhaps Canonical could put a multiple page, or even a book-length tutorial in its initramfs scripts that tries to teach all eventualities of what a user might need to fix when they run e2fsck by hand, if fsck exits with an error code indicating that the file system needs to be fixed by hand. Again, feel free to convince canonical to do something like that if it's really needed by novice users. Personally, I think it's roughly equivalent to trying to teach medicine to a novice as opposed to telling them to see a doctor, but hey, Ubuntu can try to break ground by trying to lead users by the hand. I do predict that after you tell users to "hit fsck /dev/xxxxxx", what will happen next is users will go to forum.ubuntu-fr.org and ask, how do I answer this question? I'm so confused.... Where does this end? -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1939238 Title: UNEXPECTED INCONSISTENCY; RUN fsck MANUALLY. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/e2fsprogs/+bug/1939238/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
