cjs@cynic.net said:
> The functionality we have lost is that you cannot have a local
> filesystem in the critical_filesystems list that mounts on top of a
> remote filesystem in the critical_filesystems list. Such a situation
> is really rather odd, and I'm not convinced that we really need to
> support it, since nobody's come up with an example of a situation
> where it's obviously the right way to do things. 

Take a diskless box with an mfs /var/tmp. I'm actually using
a number of boxes set up this way.

Wouldn't it be an acceptable compromise to split critical_filesystems
into eg critical_filesystems_beforenet and critical_filesystems_afternet?

best regards
Matthias