V1

[looooo]

Checklist

• Used a personal fork of the feedstock to propose changes
• Bumped the build number (if the version is unchanged)
• Reset the build number to 0 (if the version changed)
• Re-rendered with the latest conda-smithy (Use the phrase @conda-forge-admin, please rerender in a comment in this PR for automated rerendering)
• Ensured the license file is being packaged.

[conda-forge-admin]

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/recipe.yaml) and found some lint.

Here's what I've got...

For recipe/recipe.yaml:

• ❌ The top level meta keys are in an unexpected order. Expecting ['schema_version', 'context', 'source', 'outputs', 'about', 'extra'].
• ❌ The recipe must have a build/number section.
• ❌ Recipe name has invalid characters. only lowercase alpha, numeric, underscores, hyphens and dots allowed
• ❌ Package version is missing.

_{This message was generated by GitHub Actions workflow run https://github.com/conda-forge/conda-forge-webservices/actions/runs/24278698537. Examine the logs at this URL for more detail.}

[conda-forge-admin]

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/recipe.yaml) and found it was in an excellent condition.

[joergbrech]

I like the multi-output recipe approach and as far as I can tell this would solve our usecase from #54.

[AntonReiswich]

Thank you again!

[h-vetinari]

See comment in #54

[joergbrech]

@looooo, @h-vetinari, @Krande What is your opinion on this? My personal preference is to merge this PR in favor of #54. If you have reservations against it, we will find another way, just let us know.