Getting the version number for rubygems?

Ruby
1

Hi,

In ruport I have a tool that generates a bunch of boilerplate code for
folks, and in it, I use require_gem to lock the files down to a
specific version of Ruport.

I’d like to make this friendly to RubyGems 0.9.1 by using the gem
method rather than require_gem when people have 0.9.1, but want to
generate require_gem for older versions.

So basically, is there a constant or method I can call that’ll give me
back the version of rubygems that i’m running?

2

Well, from the command line you can call “gem -v” to get the version.
Perhaps there is something you can do with that.

Jonathan

3

Gregory B. wrote:

I’d like to make this friendly to RubyGems 0.9.1 by using the gem
method rather than require_gem when people have 0.9.1, but want to
generate require_gem for older versions.

So basically, is there a constant or method I can call that’ll give me
back the version of rubygems that i’m running?

For 0.8.11 and 0.9.0, this should work:
require ‘rubygems/rubygems_version’
p Gem::RubyGemsVersion
but no promises on any other version. Check the SCM history.

That said, why not rescue NoMethodError?

Devin

4

On 1/20/07, Eric H. [email protected] wrote:

older than 0.9.1 has a serious security exploit. (About 20% of
rubyists are running a version of RubyGems without #gem (prior to
0.9.1’s release).)

I’ll probably do this by the next release, but the one coming up in a
week or two i’d like to give people a bit of grace period.

So basically, is there a constant or method I can call that’ll give me
back the version of rubygems that i’m running?

Don’t think so hard:

require ‘rubygems’
Kernel.respond_to? :gem

Yep, that’s better. thanks.

5

On Jan 20, 2007, at 20:11, Gregory B. wrote:

In ruport I have a tool that generates a bunch of boilerplate code for
folks, and in it, I use require_gem to lock the files down to a
specific version of Ruport.

I’d like to make this friendly to RubyGems 0.9.1 by using the gem
method rather than require_gem when people have 0.9.1, but want to
generate require_gem for older versions.

Just use #gem, and don’t bother being backwards-compatible. RubyGems
older than 0.9.1 has a serious security exploit. (About 20% of
rubyists are running a version of RubyGems without #gem (prior to
0.9.1’s release).)

So basically, is there a constant or method I can call that’ll give me
back the version of rubygems that i’m running?

Don’t think so hard:

require ‘rubygems’
Kernel.respond_to? :gem

And now for the real answer to your question:

The rubygems constant is in Gem::RubyGemsVersion, which you can get
from ‘rubygems/rubygems_version’. Kernel#gem first appeared in 0.9.0.

–
Eric H. - [email protected] - http://blog.segment7.net

I LIT YOUR GEM ON FIRE!

6

On 1/21/07, Jeremy McAnally [email protected] wrote:

require ‘rubygems’

unless Kernel.respond_to? :gem
alias gem require_gem
end

gem ‘ruport’

That should work I believe…

instead of alias i’ll use alias_method. But I bet that would work.

7

require ‘rubygems’

unless Kernel.respond_to? :gem
alias gem require_gem
end

gem ‘ruport’

That should work I believe…

–Jeremy

On 1/20/07, Gregory B. [email protected] wrote:

Just use #gem, and don’t bother being backwards-compatible. RubyGems
Don’t think so hard:

require ‘rubygems’
Kernel.respond_to? :gem

Yep, that’s better. thanks.

–
My free Ruby e-book:
http://www.humblelittlerubybook.com/book/

My blogs:

http://www.rubyinpractice.com/

8

Gregory B. wrote:

instead of alias i’ll use alias_method.
Why? (Curious, not argumentative.)

Devin

9

On 1/21/07, Devin M. [email protected] wrote:

Gregory B. wrote:

instead of alias i’ll use alias_method.
Why? (Curious, not argumentative.)

alias is really a somewhat scary function. I can’t think of a good
example right now, but i’ve seen a couple different surprising things
with alias, wheras alias_method is simple and has normal behaviour.
Perhaps someone on the list can help me out with this.

10

On 1/21/07, Gregory B. [email protected] wrote:

On 1/21/07, Devin M. [email protected] wrote:

Gregory B. wrote:

instead of alias i’ll use alias_method.
Why? (Curious, not argumentative.)

alias is really a somewhat scary function.

well, keyword. alias_method is actually a method, alias is not.

11

On Jan 20, 2007, at 21:03, Jeremy McAnally wrote:

require ‘rubygems’

unless Kernel.respond_to? :gem
alias gem require_gem
end

gem ‘ruport’

That should work I believe…

NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!

#gem and #require_gem do different things (autorequire).

You’ll screw over other gems by aliasing things around.

Instead, just fall back to require_gem when gem isn’t loaded.

if Kernel.respond_to? :gem then
gem blah
else
require_gem blah
end

DO NOT go aliasing methods on top of each other. #require and
#require_gem do different things, much like #sub and #sub! do
different things, respect that.

–
Eric H. - [email protected] - http://blog.segment7.net

I LIT YOUR GEM ON FIRE!

12

On 1/21/07, Eric H. [email protected] wrote:

NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!

There you go being an asshole again Eric. (please stop)

if Kernel.respond_to? :gem then
gem blah
else
require_gem blah
end

DO NOT go aliasing methods on top of each other. #require and
#require_gem do different things, much like #sub and #sub! do
different things, respect that.

I’m aware of this. I actually need to just lock version and do a
normal require.

I’ll do it that way.

13

Maybe you should tell the Rails team because I’m fairly sure that’s
how they planned on handling it…

http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/6886

–Jeremy

On 1/21/07, Eric H. [email protected] wrote:

else
I LIT YOUR GEM ON FIRE!

–
My free Ruby e-book:
http://www.humblelittlerubybook.com/book/

My blogs:

http://www.rubyinpractice.com/

14

On 1/21/07, Eric H. [email protected] wrote:

You’re seeing phantoms. There’s no difference between alias_method
and alias on the inside.

Hah. That’d explain why I am scared.

I forget what the cases were, but Sebastian D. did a talk on
things he found surprising in Ruby, and the stuff he pulled up for
alias vs. alias_method was pretty convincing.

15

On Jan 20, 2007, at 21:29, Gregory B. wrote:

On 1/21/07, Devin M. [email protected] wrote:

Gregory B. wrote:

instead of alias i’ll use alias_method.
Why? (Curious, not argumentative.)

alias is really a somewhat scary function. I can’t think of a good
example right now, but i’ve seen a couple different surprising things
with alias, wheras alias_method is simple and has normal behaviour.
Perhaps someone on the list can help me out with this.

You’re seeing phantoms. There’s no difference between alias_method
and alias on the inside.

   case NODE_ALIAS:
     if (NIL_P(ruby_class)) {
         rb_raise(rb_eTypeError, "no class to make alias");
     }
     rb_alias(ruby_class, rb_to_id(rb_eval(self, node->u1.node)),
                          rb_to_id(rb_eval(self, node->u2.node)));

static VALUE
rb_mod_alias_method(mod, newname, oldname)
VALUE mod, newname, oldname;
{
rb_alias(mod, rb_to_id(newname), rb_to_id(oldname));

–
Eric H. - [email protected] - http://blog.segment7.net

I LIT YOUR GEM ON FIRE!

16

On Jan 20, 2007, at 23:33, Gregory B. wrote:

with alias, wheras alias_method is simple and has normal behaviour.
Perhaps someone on the list can help me out with this.

You’re seeing phantoms. There’s no difference between alias_method
and alias on the inside.

Hah. That’d explain why I am scared.

I forget what the cases were, but Sebastian D. did a talk on
things he found surprising in Ruby, and the stuff he pulled up for
alias vs. alias_method was pretty convincing.

any slides online?

–
Eric H. - [email protected] - http://blog.segment7.net

I LIT YOUR GEM ON FIRE!

17

On 1/21/07, Devin M. [email protected] wrote:

Gregory B. wrote:

instead of alias i’ll use alias_method.
Why? (Curious, not argumentative.)

I guess it really is just the method vs. keyword thing.
alias is available everywhere, which means you might be aliasing in
the wrong place

Also, alias can work on global variables and regex backreferences.

it’s also scary to me to see: alias new_method old_method
where alias_method :new_method, :old_method seems more natural to me.

I think I may have been overly fearful about the use of alias, but I
guess there is no good reason not to use it as long as you know what
you’re doing.

regards,
-greg

18

On Jan 21, 2007, at 1:24 AM, Eric H. wrote:

You’re seeing phantoms. There’s no difference between alias_method
and alias on the inside.

Well, you can override alias_method() if needed, but not alias.

James Edward G. II

19

On Jan 21, 2007, at 12:07 PM, James Edward G. II wrote:

On Jan 21, 2007, at 1:24 AM, Eric H. wrote:

You’re seeing phantoms. There’s no difference between
alias_method and alias on the inside.
Well, you can override alias_method() if needed, but not alias.

And that changes or invalidates what Eric said… how? Not only did
he qualify with “on the inside” but he also backed it up by showing
said inside.

20

On 1/21/07, Eric H. [email protected] wrote:

any slides online?

I didn’t see them on the nycruby list. :-/
I’ll email him and see if they’re posted anywhere