I really appreciate your good logical thinking and summary (despite poor S/N ratio in this thread) and constructive ideas for solving unacceptable (for long term) situation of upstream busybox.

I think, though, that cssu-testing is better place to post them - no CSSU maintainer or contributor seems to be watching this thread. To make things clear, joerg isn't decisive person about cssu (despite posing to be one), so for now, it stays as discussion of few average joe's like all of us, contributors to this thread. I'm afraid it just may get unnoticed by CSSU team.

Unfortunately, it's plain lie, or at best, wishful thinking. (apart from being plain rude usage o b* words, which would normally be far below level of commentable content).

busybox-power maintainer was interested in including it in CSSU, but accepted, that CSSU's requirement *at the time* was some dysfunctional package splitting. He also clearly stated, that he *doesn't* plan to work on implementing such requirement. The fact, that he opted-out without arguing, is hardly "being contend" - it's just indication, that his personal culture is far above many of his "opponents", or even supporters

Links to source posts confirming all of the above upon PM request, to save on S/N ratio here.
---

Now, to the point - considering that mentioned "dysfunctional" requirements for package splitting were lifted for worldclock, logical conclusion would be to do the same with busybox. Especially, that worldclock replacement *can* be normally installed via extras package, while busybox can't.

Of course, the above is valid only, if CSSU want to have real, consistent package inclusion policy.

Hope it helps,
/Estel