# Fox 1.2 on one-click installer 1.8.5-21

**URL:** <https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/fox-1-2-on-one-click-installer-1-8-5-21/77052>\
**Category:** Ruby\
**Created:** [November 23, 2006, 7:19pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/fox-1-2-on-one-click-installer-1-8-5-21/77052 "2006-11-23T19:19:39Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![casper\_the\_ghost](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/58956e/32.png) [@casper\_the\_ghost](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/casper_the_ghost)\
**Post date:** [November 23, 2006, 7:19pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/fox-1-2-on-one-click-installer-1-8-5-21/77052/1 "2006-11-23T19:19:39Z")

</div>

I’ve switched to 1.8.5 just a few days ago and my scripts that use fox12  
just generate 8338 warnings like the following:

:/dev/ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/fxruby-1.2.6-mswin32/ext/fox12/fox12.so:  
warning: already initialized constant TREELIST\_BROWSESELECT

I get this only by doing require ‘fox’ on an pretty much unchanged  
installation.  
Anyone now what’s wrong?  
It’s really annoying since it just slows everything down when starting  
something.  
Cheers,  
V.-

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![casper\_the\_ghost](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/c/58956e/32.png) [@casper\_the\_ghost](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/casper_the_ghost)\
**Post date:** [November 23, 2006, 7:31pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/fox-1-2-on-one-click-installer-1-8-5-21/77052/2 "2006-11-23T19:31:42Z")

</div>

On 11/23/06, Damphyr [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote:

> I’ve switched to 1.8.5 just a few days ago and my scripts that use fox12  
> just generate 8338 warnings like the following:

\<…\>

I seem to recall some past messages in the list that said it was some  
sort of bug in ruby 1.8.5. I ran into this problem myself :).

This is the suggested workaround:

$VERBOSE = nil  
require ‘fox’  
$VERBOSE = true

The warnings don’t seem to affect the actual workings of the program,  
so just removing them seems to be fine.
