Hi,Chiming in as another regular keepassxc user. When I first saw the keepassxc / keepassxc-full split I did not think much of it. But reading the comments on the upstream issue has gotten me frustrated.
Please consider resolving this in a way that doesn't break existing installations. It's easy to catch these changes when they're presented one-by-one when upgrading e.g. a system running testing regularly, but they're far more likely to miss when dozens of packages update all at once with the next stable release. Either the minimal package should only be applied as default for new installations, or the minimal package should explicitly warn when attempting to use a feature that's unavailable.
The second part I take issue with is the wording with which this is being communicated. There is no need to use charged terminology like "feature creep"[1], "crappy version"[2], or "use at your own risk"[3] when describing variants. This reads as disrespectful to both upstream and the userbase at large - let people decide for themselves what features are useful instead of dismissing their use-case outright.
[1]: https://salsa.debian.org/debian/keepassxc/-/blob/main/debian/NEWS?ref_type=heads [2]: https://github.com/keepassxreboot/keepassxc/issues/10725#issuecomment-2104401817 [3]: https://salsa.debian.org/debian/keepassxc/-/blob/main/debian/control?ref_type=heads#L76-78
Best, James
OpenPGP_0x2EC3F60DE71C0B9D.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
