Matthias Klumpp <m...@debian.org> writes: > 2013/7/19 Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org>: >> John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaub...@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 (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/87ip075ols....@windlord.stanford.edu
