Re: Survey answers part 3: systemd is not portable and what this means for our ports
Matthias Klumpp <mak@debian.org> writes:
> 2013/7/19 Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>:
>> John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> writes:
>>> Popcon however speaks a completely different language:
>>>> http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=upstart
>>>> http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=systemd
>>> Currently 64 counted installations for upstart versus 1604 counted
>>> installations for systemd with a significant drop for upstart shortly
>>> after it surged just when upstart in Debian was updated to 1.6.
>> 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.
> This is just for people who dropped SysV-Init for systemd, since
> systemd-sysv provides compatibility symlinks for a sd-only install.
> People who tried systemd will obviously need the systemd package (and
> then adjust GRUB to boot using sd).
> So, 1604 would be a valid number.
If you're looking for a number of people who have tried systemd and then
not removed it, 1604 is fine for that purpose, but that wasn't how the
number was being used. The original poster was comparing with the upstart
package in an attempt to determine relative popularity. The upstart
package replaces sysvinit with upstart (notice Conflicts: sysvinit). This
is equivalent to the systemd-sysv package.
Comparing installation counts of the systemd package to the upstart
package is comparing apples to kumquats. It's unsurprising that a package
that does not replace sysvinit has a higher install count than one that
does.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: