The venerable dput has not kept pace with other tools for many years. Dput for example never got the command capabilities announced by ftp-masters in 2012: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2012/09/msg00008.html?pow_referer=https%3A%2F%2Fhashman.ca%2F It is cumbersome for new developers to read dput's documentation and learn how to use it, only to discover soon after that dput isn't the main tool for uploads or dak commands anymore. Other newer and more complete tools should be promoted instead. Perhaps it is also easier to maintain and keep all tools up-to-date if we have fewer redundant ones. I think it is time to remove dput from Forky, and later from Debian altogether. Thanks, Otto
Control: severity -1 wishlist report does not describe any violation of policy or unsuitability for use. I am changing the severity accordingly. Is there an open bug report for that specific feature request? I can't see one reported on the ‘dput’ package. If this feature is wanted, please make a detailed bug report specifying what should change in ‘dput’ to enable that feature. Absence of a desired feature does not warrant a request to remove this package from Debian. This paragraph seems to be the main motivation for this bug report. I disagree. If there are features ‘dput’ needs, my preferred approach is to add them to ‘dput’ and make the replacement unnecessary.
This is a simplistic answer but you could look at all the features dput-ng has and add them to dput, like support for dak-commands (https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2012/09/msg00008.html). But I think it would be simpler to deprecate some of the duplicate and overlapping tools instead of spearing resources thin and trying to maintain all of them.
I'm happy to receive new bug reports describing specifically what features people want added to the ‘dput’ package. That one you point to could be a good start, if someone wants to do the work of a new, specific bug report constrained to that scope. “Look at all features from another package and add them” is too broad to act on, I regret to say. If that's what this bug report amounts to, I can't do much with it. I don't agree with that position, so I'm inclined to close this report.