[Rubygems-developers] --rdoc option does not have an effect

Lothar Scholz scholz at scriptolutions.com
Mon Jun 6 02:31:23 EDT 2005

Hello Eric,

Monday, June 6, 2005, 1:06:58 PM, you wrote:

EH> On 05 Jun 2005, at 21:38, Lothar Scholz wrote:

>> Monday, June 6, 2005, 7:21:08 AM, you wrote:
>>>> the first has no "s.has_rdoc" defined in the specifiction the
>>>> latter has
>>>> "s.has_rdoc = nil". No matter what arguments, xml-simple is always
>>>> installed without RDoc, BlueCloth always with RDoc. This does not
>>>> make
>>>> sense to me.
>> EH> If a gem has no rdoc (xml-simple), rubygems can't suddenly make it
>> EH> appear.
>> Sorry of course it can. It will just list the things dectected by
>> analysing the source code. It is only a problem when the is code is a
>> compiled binary library but this is not the case in my examples.
>> Thats why there is an option like the force rdoc generation.
>> And it does not work (also tried the  "gem rdoc xml-simple" command).
>> I must do this manually by calling "rdoc <gemlibpath>".
>> So it is very clear that this is an Error in RubyGems.

EH> lib/rubygems/doc_manager.rb disagrees:

EH>      def generate_rdoc
EH>        return if @spec.has_rdoc == false

EH> and I disagree that rubygems should ever second-guess the gem author.

Okay but then you must change the documentation and the "gem help".
I don't insist on generating rubydoc if the gem author denies it -
even if i think it might be a good idea to force rdoc generation - but
the rubygems system must be consistent without documentation bugs.

Best regards,
 Lothar Scholz                mailto:scholz at scriptolutions.com

More information about the Rubygems-developers mailing list