well, then i hope those bugfixes are in that CSSU bugfix of standard busybox as well (though, not really, see two § below). Otherwise don't blame me but the one who missed to include them. However that argument is irrelevant regarding inclusion of busybox-power to CSSU.
The really funny thing is your effort to turn my words against me by perverting their meaning. CSSU is conservative, and quality of paramount importance (basically both one same thing) and thus we won't lightheaded consider swapping a whole distro to a different toolchain and build options (means 'new' untested program versions for basically everything) just for getting the new property of saved bytes in rootfs, while same time we won't include busybox-power not only because of introducing changes and thus risks that are not justified by general need (since everybody has the option to get busybox-power from default extras-* repos, something that per definition excludes inclusion to CSSU), but also we don't waste kilobytes of rootfs for this (regarding CSSU) absolutely useless improvement (maybe to stop shitstorms: it's useless just for CSSU, in the sense that nothing in CSSU depends on busybox-power improvements)

Your wish be my order, this single time: We already know since ages that maemo initscripts are all but posix-safe, and that you might get a bootloop by overriding/replacing busybox by proper bash for default shell, and unix-tools. This is clearly a bug in initscripts that in turn only works since busybox also has a bug (as otherwise - if busybox was 100% compatible to bourne shell as it's supposed to be, there wouldn't be that weird bug in the scripts). Now replacing stock 'Nokia' busybox by busybox-power (or a 'bugfixed' normal busybox, see above ref to here) with "a lot of upstream bugfixes" might as well fix that bug in busybox that's needed to make initscripts work. Are you going to analyze all the initscripts to spot those locations where such problem might happen? If yes, please come up with a proper work package done incl complete analysis result report *) and patches to initscripts - if not, please stop arguing at this poor and pretty insulting level.

/j



*) to simplify this task for you, it might actually be sufficient to find out what were the problematic commands in initscripts (back in pre-1.2 times iirc) and just check if the syntax and output (and semantics) of these busybox commands has changed due to the applied upstream fixes, and if the current initscripts still have those defective
lines.
In fact THAT would be some much appreciated contribution to CSSU, as opposed to your constant questioning of qualifications, motivations and decisions of CSSU team which doesn't really help much for anything