Add mdolab-baseclasses

[whophil]

Checklist

• Title of this PR is meaningful: e.g. "Adding my_nifty_package", not "updated meta.yaml".
• License file is packaged (see here for an example).
• Source is from official source.
• Package does not vendor other packages. (If a package uses the source of another package, they should be separate packages or the licenses of all packages need to be packaged).
• If static libraries are linked in, the license of the static library is packaged.
• Build number is 0.
• A tarball (url) rather than a repo (e.g. git_url) is used in your recipe (see here for more details).
• GitHub users listed in the maintainer section have posted a comment confirming they are willing to be listed there.
• When in trouble, please check our knowledge base documentation before pinging a team.

[conda-forge-linter]

Hi! This is the friendly automated conda-forge-linting service.

I wanted to let you know that I linted all conda-recipes in your PR (recipes/mdolab-baseclasses) and found some lint.

Here's what I've got...

For recipes/mdolab-baseclasses:

• noarch: python recipes are required to have a lower bound on the python version. Typically this means putting python >=3.6 in both host and run but you should check upstream for the package's Python compatibility.

[conda-forge-linter]

Hi! This is the friendly automated conda-forge-linting service.

I just wanted to let you know that I linted all conda-recipes in your PR (recipes/mdolab-baseclasses) and found it was in an excellent condition.

[whophil]

@nwu63 could you please comment here to confirm the following? Thanks!

GitHub users listed in the maintainer section have posted a comment confirming they are willing to be listed there.

[ewu63]

I can confirm that I am willing to be a maintainer of this package.

Just wondering, do we need to have a separate copy of the license file? The original repository provides a license file already, which should be in the tarball.

[whophil]

Just wondering, do we need to have a separate copy of the license file? The original repository provides a license file already, which should be in the tarball.

I was following a pattern from other recipes. It seems to be strongly encouraged here. I don't know if it's possible to get the license file from source.

As of right now, I don't think mdolab-baseclasses packages the LICENSE.md file into the wheel.

[whophil]

@nwu63 saw your comment in mdolab/pyoptsparse#261 about other maintainers. You are welcome to add them (and any others) yourself, I have given you push access to this branch.

[ewu63]

I was following a pattern from other recipes. It seems to be strongly encouraged here. I don't know if it's possible to get the license file from source.

As of right now, I don't think mdolab-baseclasses packages the LICENSE.md file into the wheel.

From this page they say

The license should only be shipped along with the recipe if there is no license file in the downloaded archive. If there is a license file in the archive, please set license_file to the path of the license file in the archive.

and I did check that the tarballs contain the entire repo including the license file. So I think we are okay here? But I have no experience with conda so not sure what we should do.

Lastly, @eirikurj can you comment here and confirm that you are okay with being a maintainer for this package?

[eirikurj]

I can confirm that I am willing to be a maintainer of this package.

[whophil]

@conda-forge-admin, please ping team

[conda-forge-linter]

Hi! This is the friendly automated conda-forge-webservice.

I was asked to ping @conda-forge/staged-recipes and so here I am doing that.