John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de> writes: > On 07/19/2013 02:55 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I believe the equivalent systemd package to the upstart package is the >> systemd-sysv package, so 174 rather than 1604 is perhaps the better >> number to use. > I'm not sure whether I can follow. I am using systemd on both my desktop > and my laptop and neither of them has the systemd-sysv package installed > which, AFAIK, is required for compatibility reasons only. I see no sign that installing systemd replaces init or takes over process 1. All of the symlinks to do so are in the systemd-sysv package, and that's the only package that conflicts with sysvinit and thereby removes the other init system. Am I missing something? <checks> Ah, here we go: | systemd can be installed alongside sysvinit and will not change the | behaviour of the system out of the box. This is intentional. To test | systemd, add: | | init=/bin/systemd | | to the kernel command line and then rebooting, or install the | systemd-sysv package. I didn't know about the init= method and was assuming the systemd-sysv method. Anyway, my point is that I suspect the vast majority of the systems with the systemd package installed are not actually using it as process 1. The upstart package takes over process 1, so 100% of the systems with the upstart package installed are using it as process 1. The same is true of systemd-sysv, of course. I don't think there's a way to do a straight apples to apples comparison on adoption based on the current popcon numbers. The number of people running systemd is more than the install count of systemd-sysv, but less (and I suspect much less) than the install count of systemd. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87d2qf5ngg....@windlord.stanford.edu
