docs: Fix LICENSE files for windows and linux #1431
Conversation
| @@ -1 +0,0 @@ | |||
| ../../LICENSE | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Symlinks don't play well with publishing packages, it's better to just have the license everywhere.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
they do work! it was just these two weren't actually symlinks
There was a problem hiding this comment.
other packages are good:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's because I have a script that turns them from symlinks to real files every time I do a release 😂
There was a problem hiding this comment.
And you ask me; "why didn't you just commit them as files instead of writing a script for that?"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
well I will merge it so at least it is standard and shall work with your script
if you want to follow up and make them all copies, it's fine by me (as long as they are all consistent) :P
right now these two are files with symlink content so that definitely does not work at all
Description
Flipping through pub I figured that unlike the AP-base package and all other AP packages, the Windows and Linux packages did not seem to have a LICENSE file associated.
Looking at GitHub, it was a simple mistake - the "symlink" was copied in a way that didn't propagate the correct file type when those packages were created.
They actually had physical files with the path of the symlink written on them. A fresh
ln -squickly amended the issue. The diff on GitHub web interface might look weird, but if you check git, what really changed was just the file type.This should fix the pub issues with those two packages on the next release.
Before:
Now:
Checklist
fix:,feat:,docs:,chore:etc).///, where necessary.Breaking Change