On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 15:50, Luis Lavena <luislavena / gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 12, 6:21pm, Nikolai Weibull <n... / bitwi.se> wrote:

Ryan Davis wrote:

>> > Rubygems calls make/rake/whatever. That's it.

>> Was this really necessary? Make the output clearer instead of
>> complaining that people don°«t understand it.

> The problem is not RubyGems actually, but that RedCloth turns -Werror
> so warnings are treated as errors and 'make' interpret GCC exit code
> as error, not success.

Yes, I know.  That°«s why I wrote

http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/383052

As I tried to explain to Ryan in a subsequent email, what I meant was
that I didn°«t think it necessary to complain about Quintus°«s question
in such a harsh way, especially /after/ I had already provided an
answer.

http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/383187

I agree that RubyGems gets some unwarranted flak, but my point was
that users obviously have a hard time discerning what°«s at fault when
an error occurs when installing a gem.  By improving the output of
RubyGems when an error occurs, using information provided with the
gem, such as home page, author, and email address, users will know who
to contact to report said error.

> RubyGems takes the error of Make and tells you "there was an error
> with compilation of extension". RubyGems can't guess or determine what
> failed to provide a better error for you, that will be overly
> complicated.

> As OP said, there must be a change in GCC version or even Ruby version
> that could have been the root of this issue.

No, I said that.

I don°«t understand why I am constantly being misunderstood, but it
seems that I am at fault.  Perhaps I should make my output clearer.