Julian Andres Klode 🏳️‍🌈

@tuxwise @RLetot @keepassxc Hence I did not want to expose new users to optional subsystem code by default. This seems a reasonable stance. It is what Debian users generally expect.

Sadly I could not do that without breaking some users existing functionality. I can add a debconf dialog on upgrades to tell you more explicitly.

I will have to think about how we can solve this better in the future for similar situations (upgraded get X, new gets Y), but this requires new apt features.

Like 10 May at 17:11 | Wall-to-wall | Open on mastodon.social

2 comments

Julian Andres Klode 🏳️‍🌈

@tuxwise @RLetot @keepassxc We can also rename the existing package to KeePassXC-minimal and then remove the keepassxc package.

Then users will get a message from apt when doing install keepassxc that tells them it's provided by either.

But anyway I hope this longer explanation seems less rude to you, I had to sit down in the middle of a city trying to get it out on my phone.

10 May at 17:15 | Open on mastodon.social

Topher 🌱🐧💚

@juliank @keepassxc

I personally wouldn't mind and would in fact choose to use the minimised version with all those things removed, aside from the YubiKey support. That's the only part that seems a bit odd...

All the other features, though? I would happily use the "feature-less" version.

(would *strongly* opt for it, in fact, if it did still have YubiKey support)

10 May at 20:32 | Open on infosec.space