Omit devDependencies from licenses

[remko]

Do you want to request a feature or report a bug?

Feature (I think)

What is the current behavior?

licenses commands list both dependencies and devDependencies. This tends to be a huge list if your entire toolchain is installed, and is not helpful (at least to me; I don't care about listing or generating disclaimers for licenses of the tools I use, only my real dependencies).

What is the expected behavior?

licenses should only list the real dependencies.

[sebmck]

Depending on the licenses of your devDependencies it may actually be required to list them as they were involved in the generation/creation of your code. I think it's safer if we just add a --production flag to yarn licenses that filters these.

[sebmck]

Created #1104 to fix this, pending approval.

[sebmck]

Looks like we actually already support yarn licenses ls --production but it currently mutates the current folder. The PR I've opened addresses this and makes it function as expected.

[Daniel15]

Good catch! I agree with this - I was going to submit a bug report for it, but I forgot to. Having a --production flag sounds good to me.