thanks for your comments.
>> Done. Please see my 'hyperscan-with-alternatives' branch  for a
>> version using alternatives.
> I think this is the way to go, thanks Sascha.
Sure, no problem.
> One more thing: do you think it's time for us to introduce the change
> at this point in the release cycle of Stretch?
> Perhaps we should wait until the release, some months ahead, so we
> make sure suricata is well established into stable.
> My plan is to upload suricata 3.2 today, and I would like to avoid NEW
> and backports-NEW for this upload.
Yes, I see your point and agree that having 3.2 in testing in time for
the freeze is a priority. What do you think about the following course
of action: get 3.2 into testing now, and after the (soft? full?) stretch
freeze we upload a split-hyperscan package for the version that is
current at that time?
I will keep the split-hyperscan versions up-to-date with the official
state of unstable/jessie-backports anyway (to be used internally by my
organization). So I wouldn't expect the final effort to introduce the
split package into Debian to be too bad.