New package: mlpack v3.2.3

[JuliaRegistrator]

• Registering package: mlpack
• Repository: https://github.com/mlpack/mlpack.jl
• Created by: @rcurtin
• Version: v3.2.3
• Commit: e0c6f2678a782aac60c34da02bb076c0578a617f
• Git reference: master
• Release notes:

Initial release of mlpack's Julia bindings.

[github-actions]

Your new package pull request does not meet the following guidelines for auto-merging:

• Name does not meet all of the following: starts with an uppercase letter, ASCII alphanumerics only, ends in a lowercase letter. Important note: It is okay to have a package name that ends in an uppercase letter. However, you will need to wait until a registry maintainer manually approves the name.
• Version number is not 0.0.1, 0.1.0, or 1.0.0

Note that the guidelines are only required for the pull request to be merged automatically. However, it is strongly recommended to follow them, since otherwise the pull request needs to be manually reviewed and merged by a human.

Since you are registering a new package, please make sure that you have read the package naming guidelines: https://julialang.github.io/Pkg.jl/dev/creating-packages/#Package-naming-guidelines-1

---

If you want to prevent this pull request from being auto-merged, simply leave a comment. If you want to post a comment without blocking auto-merging, you must include the text [noblock] in your comment.

[rcurtin]

Right, we've broken the guidelines. But I think we have good reason. :)

• The name matches the upstream mlpack package: https://github.com/mlpack/mlpack, where it's mlpack and not Mlpack.
• The version is 3.2.3, since that's the current stable version of mlpack, and the first version that has Julia bindings. So we're not starting from 0.x (that was 2007 :)).

I believe I've solved the compat issue, but I'm not sure how to get @JuliaRegistrator to rebuild the package.

[ararslan]

I don't think this should be merged with the current name. To quote @davidanthoff in Slack:

There are lots of Julia packages that wrap some upstream package that uses some capitalization that doesn't conform with the Julia norm, and the practice for the Julia package has been to adhere to the Julia convention.
So I don't see a reason to make an exception here, to be honest 🙂

That summarizes my thoughts here exactly.

[StefanKarpinski]

It seems perfectly fine to me for the name of a JLL to match the name of the library that it wraps. That's exactly what I did with bsdiff.

[rcurtin]

Thanks to @ericphanson in mlpack/mlpack.jl#2, the upper bound on the compat entry is added now. I'm not sure if I need to do anything to make an automatic rebuild happen, but I'm happy to handle anything else if needed. 👍

[DilumAluthge]

Retrigger Registrator. This will update the PR.

[ararslan]

It seems perfectly fine to me for the name of a JLL to match the name of the library that it wraps

This isn't a JLL registration

[rcurtin]

@DilumAluthge I can see how to retrigger if I used the GitHub App, but I used the web registrator at https://pkg.julialang.org/registrator/, so the instructions here don't seem to apply. Does the web registrator automatically update a PR if one is already open? I don't want to accidentally open a different one if I don't need to. 👍

[DilumAluthge]

Yeah it should update this PR. Try it out. If it makes a duplicate for some reason, we can close one of the PRs, no big deal.

[rcurtin]

Victory, thank you @DilumAluthge! 👍

[rcurtin]

Alright, looks like everything is okay after the rebuild. 👍

[fredrikekre]

It seems perfectly fine to me for the name of a JLL to match the name of the library that it wraps. That's exactly what I did with bsdiff.

As Alex pointed out, this is a regular Julia package (JLLs are as well but..), and bsdiff is in fact called bsdiff_jll, just like the mlpack entry in Yggdrasil is called mlpack_jll.

[StefanKarpinski]

Ultimately the choice of package name is up to the author. We can make recommendations, but as long as they pick a name that isn't clearly typosquatting or offensive, it's up to them.

[DilumAluthge]

Ultimately the choice of package name is up to the author. We can make recommendations, but as long as they pick a name that isn't clearly typosquatting or offensive, it's up to them.

It seems clear to me that the author wants this name, and neither of the two criteria in Stefan’s comment are met.

[rcurtin]

Thanks all, much appreciated. 👍