Comment 4 for bug 353768

So my transitional library package was rejected (rightfully so). Here is a different approach:
<slangasek> I'm thinking about providing transitional plugin packages instead of a transitional lib package
 since the plugin renames are actually entirely gratuitous, AFAICS
<slangasek> they were first renamed to avoid collision with pwlib, which is still in the archive
 the second rename was just to keep pace with the soname
 so, either providing dummy packages for all the plugins (but there are a lot), or just revert the name change for the plugins...
<slangasek> mvo: ok. I have a slight preference for reverting the package names, instead of carrying extra dummy packages, even though those names will be mismatched; what do you think?
<mvo> slangasek: hm, if we revert back to the old names, what about already installed libpt2.6.1-plugins-v4l etc ?