the maintainer has enabled all plugins (including network stuff) in the keepassxc-full package, the keepassxc package will be just the basics with a much better security posture.
that's obviously completely fine and completely within the remit of a maintainer, the entire complaint is about this being a change.
So you shouldn't have "keepassxc" and "keepassxc-full". Instead you should have "keepassxc" and "keepassxc-minimal".
But in this case, upstream has responded and clearly indicated that they do not want the minimal distribution of KeepassXC to be branded as the main "keepassxc" package: https://github.com/keepassxreboot/keepassxc/issues/10725#iss...
> IMHO is a downstream maintainer is going to change a package in a way that doesn't have the intent of the upstream project, it should be published under a different name and that maintainer deal with all bug reports caused by their modified version.
the downstream maintainer didn't "change a package in a way that doesn't have the intent of the upstream project", they altered the config flags in one package and made another with the previous flags. the maintainer is being a dick, but not in the way the OP suggested.
They altered the config flags in a way that doesn't have the intent of the upstream project. And I would classify build config changes as a subset of "changing a package".
You fundamentally misunderstand our program when you use the word plugin. These are
built in features, not plugins. The features can be enabled as desired by the user and
they come disabled by default. This change to not compile and ship these features in the
base keepassxc package does nothing besides create angry (or confused) users.
plugin, compile time ./configure flag, whatever - package maintainers extremely routinely create multiple versions of a package for various reasons, from security (this case) to dependencies (Debian contains a emacs-nox package that is emacs compiled without X libraries to avoid dragging them in on servers, for example) to license reasons.
again, all of the complaints are literally about the change, which the maintainer has decided to do in a disruptive fashion.
I'm pretty sure some compromise could theoretically be reached here. But not with that attitude. "It is our responsibility to our users to provide them the most secure option possible as the default"? You know what would be even more secure? To disable all networking in any program, and in fact, in Linux itself. Actually, it's even more secure to just not give people a computer at all. This is one of those stupid discussion-stoppers.
These kind of Highly Opinionated Maintainers™ has always been what put me off from Debian (and by extension, Ubuntu). I want to use KeePassXC, not "KeePassXC as some random guy thinks it should have been".