Update to 7.0.3.1 and refactor

[beenje]

Checklist

• [X] Used a fork of the feedstock to propose changes

• [ ] Bumped the build number (if the version is unchanged)

• [X] Reset the build number to 0 (if the version changed)

• [x] Re-rendered with the latest conda-smithy (Use the phrase code>@<space/conda-forge-admin, please rerender in a comment in this PR for automated rerendering)

• [X] Ensured the license file is being packaged.

• I updated the recipe for epics-base 7.0.3.1 and refactor the build scripts (especially windows)

• I created activate/deactivate scripts to update the PATH and a few variables (including PYEPICS_LIBCA)

• I did some checks on linux / OSX / windows

• In the last commit, I split the package in 2: epics-base-libs (libs and include) and epics-base (the rest). epics-base depends on epics-base-libs sub package. I don't know if it's worth it or not. The epics-base-libs subpackage is much bigger than the other one. So installing only the libs doesn't make the user gain much. What do you think?

• I pushed a new commit to split the package in 2: epics-base-static-libs (only static libs) and epics-base (the rest). Static libs aren't often used as fas as I know and are quite big. Moving them to a separate subpackage allow to make the epics-base package much smaller. I don't see a real advantage to separate the dynamic libs in another subpackage. Let me know what you think.

[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 (recipe) and found some lint.

Here's what I've got...

For recipe:

• The top level meta keys are in an unexpected order. Expecting ['package', 'source', 'build', 'requirements', 'test', 'outputs', 'about', 'extra'].

For recipe:

• License is not an SPDX identifier (or a custom LicenseRef) nor an SPDX license expression.

[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 (recipe) and found it was in an excellent condition.

I do have some suggestions for making it better though...

For recipe:

• License is not an SPDX identifier (or a custom LicenseRef) nor an SPDX license expression.

[beenje]

@conda-forge-admin, please rerender

[beenje]

I actually think it would make more sense to keep epics-base with almost everything and move the static libraries to a different subpackage. The static libs are quite big. Does anyone really use them? Having a subpackage would still allow to install them if you want and that would make epics-base smaller.

[beenje]

@hhslepicka you are welcome to comment as well.

[hhslepicka]

@beenje module the PyEPICS variables I think that it is a great change to be applied. About the static libs, I think that it is fine the way you proposed it as a separated package. Thanks a lot for working on that.

[simongregorebner]

Hey @hhslepicka @beenje thanks a lot for your work! As I more or less have no time at all to have a look at this, would you be interested to take over the maintenance of this stock from my side?

[beenje]

Hey @hhslepicka @beenje thanks a lot for your work! As I more or less have no time at all to have a look at this, would you be interested to take over the maintenance of this stock from my side?

On my side, I'm interested in maintaining this recipe. I'll add myself to the maintainer list.