I don't agree that split packages is really about file or download sizes. The way I see it, a split package would fairly represent desires to install the games separately as their own entities.
For example, if someone only cared about Hexen, they should be capable of installing _only_ a chocolate-hexen package, ignoring Doom, Heretic, and Strife. This also would free up the desktop menus (or app drawer, however any particular desktop implements them) from icons for games that they may never play nor care about. If file size were really the concern, I could probably place an argument about *any* package ever being split in the age of terabyte hard disks and people generally having hundreds of gigabytes free -- even LibreOffice is "only" ~400MB, why bother installing only Writer to save a few MB from that? I just personally don't see split packages as being a concern about file or download size. It might be a nice side-benefit, sometimes, but it's not really about that. For what it's worth, I maintain the Chocolate Doom package in Arch Linux's AUR, and since 2.0.0 came out, I have kept it as split packages, pretty much for the sole reason of allowing people to keep only the games they care about. To solve the issue with setup and server binaries, I made a chocolate-common package that the other four packages depend on. You can see the PKGBUILD here: https://github.com/chungy/aur/blob/master/chocolate-doom/PKGBUILD -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
