why package/vc a giant binary?

This question was expired because it remained in the 'Open' state without activity for the last 15 days.

Expired? Really??
I mean it's so much off from the way packages are normally packaged that someone has to have thought about it and deliberately decided to package it this way, and I can hardly imagine that no one ever questioned this.
If you don't care, at least be decent enough to tell me so....

This question expired because it remained Open with no status change for 15 days. Questions are automatically expired to avoid giving people the false idea that their questions will be answered, in situations where they might well languish indefinitely. It is easy (and totally acceptable) to reopen an Expired question, which you have done. Questions that are linked to bugs do not expire automatically, which is why this question has not expired since.

Your bug was Expired automatically after being Incomplete for a long time. It was Incomplete because Fabien Tassin asked you for clarification, and you never provided it. If you are unable to answer Fabien Tassin's question in the bug, you can set the bug's status back to Incomplete and explain the difficulty you are having providing an answer. If you are able to comprehensively answer Fabien Tassin's question and explain clearly why the condition you are describing should be changed (i.e., why it is a bug), such that you believe a developer could read what you had said, decide to work on the problem, and begin work on the problem, then please do that (in the bug, not here) and mark the bug's status back to New. Please do not be surprised if you do that and others (or Fabien Tassin again) request further information from you (possibly setting the bug's status to Incomplete again, while doing so).

Fabien Tassin is not listed as a subscribed (under "Notified of all changes" or "May be notified") in bug 596210, so if you do reply and want him to see it, you might consider subscribing him to the bug. (Subscribing other people do bugs should be done with restraint, but in this case, he did request information from you...though it was quite long ago.) If you do not, he might or might not see your post.

See https://help.launchpad.net/Answers/AskingForHelp, https://help.launchpad.net/Bugs/Statuses, http://blog.launchpad.net/general/of-bugs-and-statuses, and https://help.ubuntu.com/community/ReportingBugs for more information about the processes whereby questions are asked and answered and bugs are reported and fixed.

I am submitting this post as an answer to your question (rather than a comment, which would keep its status as Open), because it seems that if there is to be any more constructive conversation or other progress on the underlying technical issue in chromium-browser, it will happen in bug 596210 rather than here. That is, it seems to me that this question has in effect become about the question asking and bug reporting process, whereas bug 596210 itself is where work on the way chromium-browser's source is packaged would happen. However, if you want this question's status to return to Open, you can accomplish that trivially by posting in the question and indicating that you still need help.