Bumping "extralib" library versions

[Duncan Coutts]

On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 14:11 +0100, Ian Lynagh wrote:

> If anyone sees any problems with my suggested version numbers below,
> please shout.
> 
> I've CCed all addresses listed as Cabal maintainers of extralibs; please
> let us know if you disagree with the versions we propose to use for your
> packages.

Only two minor points...

> > ==========
> > arrows
> > 
> > HEAD repo: http://darcs.haskell.org/packages/arrows
> > Released version:       0.3  (on hackage)
> > Current version:        0.3
> > Changes since release:  none
> > Suggested next version: not needed
> > PVP next version:       not needed
> 
> There have been some patches to the repo, so I think it would be nice to
> make a new tarball, and it's not that expensive, so I'd suggest 0.3.0.1.

There are no patches since the one that increased the version number
from 0.2.1 to 0.3. No new release is needed at the moment.

cc'ing Ross who is maintainer of this package.

> > ==========
> > X11
> > 
> > HEAD repo: http://darcs.haskell.org/packages/X11
> > Released version:       1.2.3 (on hackage)
> > Current version:        1.2.3
> > Changes since:          none
> > Suggested next version: not needed
> > PVP next version:       not needed
> 
> 1.2.3.1

Again, there are no patches since the patch that tagged version 1.2.3,
so no new release is needed.

cc'ing Don who is maintainer of this package.


All your other version suggestions look fine to me.

Since we're moving to a model where extralibs is just a bundling of
existing releases rather than necessarily fresh releases itself, then we
do not need to re-release existing packages where there have been no
changes, we can just use the existing packages as is. Indeed, as I've
said I'd like to see all these packages go up on hackage soon and not
necessarily synchronised with the release of ghc.

For example, I've already released Cabal-1.2.1 and binary-0.9. Ross and
Don have already released arrows-0.3 and X11-1.2.3. I expect ghc-6.8.1
will come with a later minor revision of Cabal (Solaris fixes etc) but
it'll most probably use exactly the bytestring-0.9 that I've already
released. Not that there is anything stopping us from doing a 0.9.0.1
release if we do need to make more changes, just that it's not essential
that we do so if we make no changes.

> I believe all the core library version numbers are OK, except I will
> append .0's until they become 4-component.

Right.


Duncan