add raspa2

[ltalirz]

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 just wanted to let you know that I linted all conda-recipes in your PR (recipes/raspa2) and found it was in an excellent condition.

[ltalirz]

main developer has been pinged in iRASPA/RASPA2#14
will add him as a maintainer of the feedstock in case he is interested (but PR can be merged already)

[ltalirz]

One thing that is not quite clear to me: why was there a win build when I'm skipping this in the meta.yaml?

Do I need to rerender , despite the win build being skipped from the beginning?

[jan-janssen]

One thing that is not quite clear to me: why was there a win build when I'm skipping this in the meta.yaml?

Do I need to rerender , despite the win build being skipped from the beginning?

The windows build is only there in the staged - recipes so users do not have to rerender when initially submitting their recipe.

[jan-janssen]

@conda-forge/staged-recipes, ready for review

[ltalirz]

Thanks for the hint, and thanks for asking for review
From the guidelines, it wasn't clear to me whether I should ask for review or whether I should just wait for some time