mrooney: I'm not convinced that this is ready for implementation:
I think the unanswered questions I can see here include: (a) How does the system determine whether the issue really was caused simply by a hard shutdown or power loss (and so decide that fsck -y is likely to be an appropriate thing to offer the user as an "automated" fix), vs something more serious such as a failing disk drive or intermittently faulty disk controller (or any other circumstances in which an fsck -y could do more harm than good)? While a human user often "knows" whether or not the system was "just" not shut down correctly last time, the OS itself has no apparent way to determine that while booting, that I know of. This bug report does not seem to propose a way to determine this. (b) Are you sure most knowledgeable people really do fsck -y in these circumstances? Is running fsck -y guaranteed to be safe for your data, on all filesystem types on all classes of machine? Is there evidence to support this claim? Even in the report's specific circumstances, I'd at least have made an image copy of the virtual disk file first, so that if e2fsck -y broke it further, I'd have a way to start the repair over, using a more conventional and more careful approach than the one you are advocating here. Maybe I am just slightly more paranoid than some about my data. So, anecdotally at least, it is unclear that "most experienced users" handle this kind of situation exactly as you do. (c) Have you considered the implications for filesystems whose fsck does not support a -y flag? Note that the fsck man page specifically states that "Options to different filesystem-specific fsck's are not standardized", and goes on to list -y as one that not all filesystem- specific checkers support. I have not checked all fs-specific checkers in Ubuntu to confirm this. One solution for this could be only offer the proposed "pretty" UI if the fs concerned is ext2/ext3/ext4 ? -- Need newbie-friendly alternative to maintenance shell when mount fails https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/489474 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
