Bumping "extralib" library versions

[Don Stewart]

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.

Yes, it seems unnecessary to update this. Consider the X11 package the
first that has been updated for ghc 6.8 on hackage :)

> 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.

Right, exactly the model we want, I think.

> 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.
> 

-- Don