The problem is that only one person gets to comment on the quality of a library, the author, who is about the least objective person.
i would just like to add that i have had a great deal of success with hackage and find that most libraries support what they say they will support, but often there is missing functionality that the original authors have not attended to for some reason. bugs haven't impacted me as much as missing/incomplete features. by rolling certain libraries into a base distribution, i was implying that there would be more eyeballs focusing on making them feature-complete. furthermore, by closely associating these libraries into a base distribution, there will be a sense of urgency associated with closing major bugs. in any case, batteries included or not, ghc seems to have reached a point of stability, high performance, and lots of neat fundamental features that it can be left alone for a short time. i would love to see 2008 be the year we direct time and effort to solve filling holes in the libraries. perhaps an online tool for voting for missing libraries or features would help us assess where to direct efforts.