> On Oct 22, 2018, at 09:49, Josh Paetzel <j...@tcbug.org> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018, at 11:05 AM, Brooks Davis wrote: >> >> >> This is the direction I'd been thinking. FWIW, the usecase is more that >> once you've moved away from the struct it's easy to make incremental >> changes then to use a 32-bit mountd on a 64-bit kernel. Moving toward >> size-independent interfaces helps both causes though. >> >> -- Brooks >> Email had 1 attachment: >> + signature.asc >> 1k (application/pgp-signature) > > > Brooks, > > What is the benefit or usecase for running a 32 bit mountd on a 64 bit kernel?
There generally isn’t a case for doing this, but running a 32-bit mountd in a 32-bit chroot can allow someone with a working 32-bit environment at a company (for instance) to rebuild environments which rely on NFS mounts and the like. This is an esoteric usecase, but I’ve seen it used before (and I’ve used it myself ;)..). I don’t think this niche usecase should hinder forward progress in terms of modernizing the base OS though. Biarch usecases are diminishing over time. -Enji _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
