Meta package goals

[evetion]

if we're doing this metapackage thing?

Originally posted by @asinghvi17 in #1 (comment)

• I'd say this will at least help with (first) installations, and getting up to speed in tutorials.
• When re-exporting, we'd have to make sure there are no clashes
• This might also be a nice testing ground for combined tests/tutorials.
• ?

[asinghvi17]

1. What level of tutorial are we pushing this at? I'd almost be tempted to not put it in the geocompx book, and if we can get all the needed imports into Rasters and GeometryOps (Extents, GeoFormatTypes, etc), the only purpose of this package would be to load backends.
2. To restate - the clashes are GeoJSON between GeoFormatTypes and GeoJSON, coverage, rebuild, reproject between GeometryOps and Rasters, and union, intersection` between Extents and GeometryOps.

Some of these definitions can be folded into each other - the only true issue might be Rasters coverage.

[rafaqz]

After converting some terra code I've come around to Geo.func being better than Rasters/GeometryOps/GeoDataFrames.func for explaining things to beginners, because its hard to know which package does what.

geocompx could start with just using Geo for an easy introduction, then transition to using specific packages where only one is needed. We can have both the easy syntax for beginners and just using the tool you need for more advanced users.