This question is a duplicate of an existing MO question, but that other MO question has an accepted answer that does not actually answer the question, and I'm not sure how to fix that other than by re-asking the question.

On page 76 of Serre's book *A Course in Arithmetic*, he writes:

[T]here exist sets having an analytic density but no natural density. It is the case, for example, of the set $P^1$ of prime numbers whose first digit (in the decimal system, say) is equal to 1. One sees easily, using the prime number theorem, that $P^1$ does not have a natural density and on the other hand Bombieri has shown me a proof that the analytic density of $P^1$ exists (it is equal to $\log_{10}2 = 0.301029995\ldots$).

There is a slight misstatement here because literally speaking, $P^1$ has natural density zero, but clearly the intent is to speak of the *relative* density of $P^1$ inside the set $P$ of all primes. In other words, Bombieri's result is a kind of "Benford's law for primes":
$$\lim_{s\to1} {\sum_{m\in P_1} m^{-s} \over \sum_{p\in P} p^{-s}} = \log_{10}2.$$

My question is, how does one prove that the above limit (which goes by various names—relative analytic density, relative Dirichlet density, relative zeta density) exists? Serre does not say anything about this.

The accepted answer to the duplicate MO question cites two papers, one by Cohen and Katz, and one by Raimi. But the paper by Cohen and Katz simply restates what Serre says without giving a proof. The paper by Raimi cites a paper by R. E. Whitney (Initial digits for the sequence of primes, *Amer. Math. Monthly* **79** (1972), 150–152) but Whitney's paper considers *logarithmic density* rather than Dirichlet density:
$$\lim_{N\to\infty} {\sum_{m\in P_1, m\le N} 1/m \over \sum_{p\in P, p\le N} 1/p}.$$
It's not clear to me that this implies Bombieri's result.

In a comment to a now-deleted MO question, KConrad suggested looking in the book *Prime Numbers* by Ellison and Ellison, but I did not find the answer there either.