From owner-freebsd-questions  Sat Aug 24 09:15:33 1996
Return-Path: owner-questions
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id JAA13342
          for questions-outgoing; Sat, 24 Aug 1996 09:15:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailbox.neosoft.com (mailbox.neosoft.com [206.109.1.16])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id JAA13329
          for <questions@freebsd.org>; Sat, 24 Aug 1996 09:15:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from default (scooter-ppp-db.NeoSoft.com [206.109.9.216]) by mailbox.neosoft.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA24941 for <questions@freebsd.org>; Sat, 24 Aug 1996 11:15:25 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <321F2A7F.266F@neosoft.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 11:14:55 -0500
From: Cord Ellis <cord@neosoft.com>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0b7 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: questions@freebsd.org
Subject: ATAPI Sorry
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-questions@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

I know this must be one of the most inane questions by now, but I was
curious about one thing in particular.

	After an undesirable DOS install I can rebuild my GENERIC kernel after
adding a mere 2 lines, and deleting mcd, scd, etc other cd's and become
able to mount my wcd0. Am I daft or isn't wcd the ATAPI cd whereas mcd,
etc are proprietary IDE's, and if so why wasn't ATAPI and wcd0 included
in the atapiflp.bat routine so that ATAPI cd's could be used for
installation?

	Is the 2.1.5 ATAPI install any different, or is adding 2 lines to the
ATAPI kernel 2 much to ask to put this issue 2 bed? 8-)

Thanks for the great work otherwise,
Cord Ellis