Storm in a teacup, as tends to be the norm on the internet.
Not only this is nothing new and nothing unexpected to happen in Sid of all places, but it’s also something that helps bring keepassxc more in line with packaging guidelines on Debian. They already have lots of packages, both of the mutually-exclusive kind and of the complementary kind, with “foo-full”, “foo-minimal”, “foo-data” etc naming. p7zip and nginx of all things are quite interesting examples.
Plus, the author of the post sensationalizes the title to brigade the issue.
All that said:
If the maintainer wishes to do this, “only” having two packages is a half-assed measure and that causes more issues in the long term. I’d expect three packages: keepassxc-minimal, keepassxc-full and the retained name keepassxc as a virtual package name.
Furthermore, a direct upgrade path should go from (previous) keepassxc to (proposed) keepassxc-full.
I don’t know enough of KeePassXC to know if something like keepassxc-data would be needed. Are there potential cases where one would want to switch between “-full” and “-minimal” or viceversa without the system seeing a software uninstallation in the meantime?
The “crap” rationale is definitively something we all can do without, but given how people tend to brigade developers who try to do things, I can completely understand and support raising shields and looking defensive because some damage is already going to be done.
Most responses are right in that the right place to discuss this is in the opened Debian bug report. The entire point is to see Debian (not KeepassXC) handle this before things get to Next Stable.