Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 19:27:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug White <dwhite@gdi.uoregon.edu> To: Cord Ellis <cord@neosoft.com> Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ATAPI Sorry Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.94.960824192303.218D-100000@gdi.uoregon.edu> In-Reply-To: <321F2A7F.266F@neosoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 24 Aug 1996, Cord Ellis wrote: > 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? GENERIC isn't 'ATAPI-enabled' due to the quality of the code in question. It's very painless to ATAPI-enable it as you found. 99% of the population should build a custom kernel for their system, adding needed devices while removing unneeded ones. Running GENERIC adds quite a bit of bloat to the kernel. 2.1.5 doesn't have an atapi.flp because the default boot.flp is already ATAPI-enabled. > 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-) I think there was some question that the ATAPI code may potentially screw up the IDE disk detection (and the detection of other devices). Doug White | University of Oregon Internet: dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu | Residence Networking Assistant http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~dwhite | Computer Science Major
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSI.3.94.960824192303.218D-100000>