The ident_case package is dual-licensed for MIT and Apache-2.0. However, only the MIT license is included in the package source.
For some reason, bundle-licenses uses the MIT license file as the license text for both Apache-2.0 and MIT. This seems like a bug, because for other packages, such as wide, the license file is correctly identified, and the missing texts are emitted as NOT FOUND.
If I simply remove the Apache-2.0 entry, or explicitly change the text to NOT FOUND, then run again with -c --previous, then the MIT file is, again, used as the license text in the newly-generated file. This seems odd, because it appears to be the opposite behavior described in #21.
Is there a way to work around this, by forcing bundle-licenses to respect the existing license data for a specific package?
...in fact, even copying real Apache-2.0 text into the entry for ident_case doesn't prevent it from being replaced with the MIT text. I do not understand this behavior.
The ident_case package is dual-licensed for MIT and Apache-2.0. However, only the MIT license is included in the package source.
For some reason,
bundle-licenses
uses the MIT license file as the license text for both Apache-2.0 and MIT. This seems like a bug, because for other packages, such as wide, the license file is correctly identified, and the missing texts are emitted asNOT FOUND
.If I simply remove the
Apache-2.0
entry, or explicitly change the text toNOT FOUND
, then run again with-c --previous
, then the MIT file is, again, used as the license text in the newly-generated file. This seems odd, because it appears to be the opposite behavior described in #21.Is there a way to work around this, by forcing
bundle-licenses
to respect the existing license data for a specific package?