On Fri, 2 Dec 2011, Stephan Kulow wrote:
Am Freitag, 2. Dezember 2011, 11:47:31 schrieb Richard Guenther:
This avoids the doubt weather a license string of some sub package was forgotten or intentionally implicit. Coolos new logic appears to actually create more of this doubt, if I get it right.
Yes, that's a good suggestion as well.
Btw, a general rule to follow should be that the formatter should only do transformations that a subsequent changed formatter can undo. Thus, throwing away information isn't ok - like in this case. As I only remove duplicated information that can be readded without a problem I don't see a problem.
You don't distinguish between a deliberate duplicate (same) license
and an errorneously omitted (different) one. If you re-add the
"duplicates" you loose the "errorneously omitted different" license state.
Richard.
--
Richard Guenther