Package split or package options?

[Edgar Fuß <ef%math.uni-bonn.de@localhost>]

I'm asking myself wheter, in a particular case, it's preferable to use 
options to selectively build components or use split into seperate packages?

I have imported nss-pam-ldapd. This thing consists of three parts: a daemon 
(nslcd) and two clients, one for NSS and one for PAM (actually, there is a 
fourth part, which appears to be an alterate version of the daemon written 
in Python).
Unfortunately, almost every combination of wanting a subset of the components 
makes sense: you may want NSS, but not PAM; you may want o stick with 
nss_ldap and replace pam-ldap with the nss-pam-ldapd client; you may even 
want a client, but not the daemon: there's a OpenLDAP overlay (slapo-nssov) 
speaking the same protocol, but built into the LDAP server.

So, should I use package options controlling which of the three (or four) 
components gets built (less overhead, less likely to accidently install 
a client, but no server) or split it into three packages plus a 
nss-pam-ldapd/Makefile.common (better for binary packages)?

Same question for OpenLDAP's slapo-nssov: I've currently implemented it as 
an openldap-server option---should I factor out a package?