Add `_≥_`, `_>_`, `_≱_` and `_≯_` systematically to the `Relation.Binary.Bundles` hierarchy

[jamesmckinna]

See #1214 #2095 #2096 and #2099 for further discussion.

There is a design issue at stake here, however: do we use

• defined symbols (the solution adopted in [fixes #1214] Add negated ordering relation symbols systematically to Relation.Binary.* #2095 , De-symmetrising Relation.Binary.Bundles.Preorder._∼_ #2099)
• syntax declarations?

pro the first is that we can be more selective about imports, renaming, hiding etc. (needed in those PRs)
pro the second is that it is 'more lightweight', yet somehow more irrevocable.

My current thinking is: defined symbols

UPDATED: one two reasons I may have hesitated to pursue this already to a PR might have been:

• concern about the reception for De-symmetrising Relation.Binary.Bundles.Preorder._∼_ #2099 (merged) and [fixes #1214] Add negated ordering relation symbols systematically to Relation.Binary.* #2095 (not yet) before proceeding
• more serious: given the proliferation of hand-rolled flipped relations throughout the library, the amount of weeding out that might be required, in order to avoid clashes between the hand-rolled and the machine-made, (still!) seems a bit daunting...

[jamesmckinna]

It's a breaking change, but/hence I think worth pushing through for v2.0?

[jamesmckinna]

Well... in my frenzy of the last few weeks I had thought I had opened a PR for this, on the model of #2095 and #2099 .
But it seems as though I was mistaken, and mistaken in thinking I had the energy to try to knock this one off for v2.0 as well. Maybe tomorrow.

UPDATED: the evolution of #2095 (despite its recent merger!) suggests that some more thinking is required, esp. re the breaking changes as regards user experience, so I'm going to suggest punting this to v2.1 or later, unless someone else has the energy for it.