On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 12:28:27AM +0100, Darren Salt wrote: > I demand that Steve Langasek may or may not have written... > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 12:31:25AM +0200, Florian Weps wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 01:22:07PM +0800, Dan Jacobson wrote: > >>> mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on /dev/hda1, > >>> or too many mounted file systems > >>> Can't this message be refined a little? Is there really no way to tell > >>> the user a slightly more informative answer? > >> No. Basically, mount asks the kernel to mount something, and the kernel > >> says "didn't work". [...] So mount *is* trying to be informative. [...] > > That's because "mount failed: reason unknown" would be the truth, whereas > > the current error message is merely speculation on the part of mount. [...] > Then, perhaps, "mount: failed, reason unknown; possibilities include foo", > where foo is a list of reasons which are likely for the expected filesystem > type...? That, I think, would be a vast usability improvement. Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpBJlyGDAY3Z.pgp
Description: PGP signature