What precaution would you expect OP to would’ve done though? A fallback kernel would be my guess - that’s something many casual oriented distro do out of the box basically. . I read your post as “you’re right, don’t use arch” - something btw which I tend to agree with although I wouldn’t say that’s because of the precautions.
I use arch because there’s no black box magic. For an end user who expects or wants that… Yes, arch might not be the right choice.
I don’t think lack of precaution was the issue here given that it was an unexpected power failure, but it is a fairly easy fix with a chroot.
Oh agreed! That’s why I’m with OP actually that arch might not be the right distro to go for.
The person I replied to basically said “that’s what you deserve for not doing it properly” if I understood it correctly - that’s what I’m confused about as well.
Yeah it seems half the commenters missed OP’s clarifying comment and just think he started a kernel update with 2% battery life.
If you know your battery is shot and you don’t have a way to save your install if the power goes out, then you just don’t update. There are plenty of ways to protect against this that have already been mentioned (battery backup, backup kernel, etc). OP was just playing with fire.
That’s kind of overzealous. I would expect most desktop users to run kernel updates without being plugged into a UPS, this is functionally identical. It’s not like it’s an unrecoverable error, but yeah if you’re updating a critical system you should have redundancies in place.
I have set up an lts kernel in addition to the zen I use by default. See:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Kernel
Disclaimer: this only works when something with image creation goes wrong with an update. Which didn’t happen to me ever - unless I did a mistake or tested some kernel stuff. I only had bootloader errors when I screwed up pacman though. The fallback kernel in that case is on a USB stick…
