On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 05:48:19PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote: > I didn't merge this, as I can't evaluate it. What do you think about > having 'sbctl' as a package for the binary only, and a new separate > package 'sbctl-setup' as a package that 'Depends: sbctl' and includes > your postinst/prerm scripts? That would make me more comfortable, and > allows simpler testing.
To avoid inventing a new naming scheme, you could have `sbctl-bin` and `sbctl`. This would match the scheme used by grub and others. Chris
