Re: Survey answers part 3: systemd is not portable and what this means for our ports
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@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 (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: