# Are sub-versions now binary-compatible?

**URL:** <https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/are-sub-versions-now-binary-compatible/89913>\
**Category:** Ruby\
**Created:** [March 23, 2007, 6:50pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/are-sub-versions-now-binary-compatible/89913 "2007-03-23T18:50:59Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![epasquier](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/e/2bfe46/32.png) [@epasquier](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/epasquier)\
**Post date:** [March 23, 2007, 6:50pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/are-sub-versions-now-binary-compatible/89913/1 "2007-03-23T18:50:59Z")

</div>

I found I had to build separate versions of a binary library to run on  
1.8.2 and 1.8.4

Do versions 1.8.4 and 1.8.5 also have binary incompatibilities? Is  
there a test suite  
around i could use?

Thanks,  
Eric

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![epasquier](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/e/2bfe46/32.png) [@epasquier](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/epasquier)\
**Post date:** [March 27, 2007, 10:19pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/are-sub-versions-now-binary-compatible/89913/2 "2007-03-27T22:19:00Z")

</div>

On Mar 23, 2007, at 10:50, Eric P. wrote:

> I found I had to build separate versions of a binary library to run on  
> 1.8.2 and 1.8.4

Which library?

> Do versions 1.8.4 and 1.8.5 also have binary incompatibilities? Is  
> there a test suite around i could use?

Depends on the library. Some can be used cross version, others can’t.

ParseTree refuses to work on a library other than the one it was  
built on. I’ve had no luck running ImageMagick on multiple ruby  
versions either.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![epasquier](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/e/2bfe46/32.png) [@epasquier](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/epasquier)\
**Post date:** [March 28, 2007, 6:24pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/are-sub-versions-now-binary-compatible/89913/3 "2007-03-28T18:24:44Z")

</div>

On 3/23/07, Eric P. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote:

> I found I had to build separate versions of a binary library to run on  
> 1.8.2 and 1.8.4
> 
> Do versions 1.8.4 and 1.8.5 also have binary incompatibilities? Is  
> there a test suite  
> around i could use?
> 
> Thanks,  
> Eric

Well, you might do a diff on any included files.

diff ruby1.8.4/ruby.h ruby1.8.5/ruby.h shows that there ARE  
differences, which would indicate to me that it’s probably not wise to  
count on binary compatibility.

–  
Rick DeNatale

My blog on Ruby  
[http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/](http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/)

IPMS/USA Region 12 Coordinator  
[http://ipmsr12.denhaven2.com/](http://ipmsr12.denhaven2.com/)

Visit the Project Mercury Wiki Site  
[http://www.mercuryspacecraft.com/](http://www.mercuryspacecraft.com/)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![epasquier](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/e/2bfe46/32.png) [@epasquier](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/epasquier)\
**Post date:** [March 28, 2007, 6:37pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/are-sub-versions-now-binary-compatible/89913/4 "2007-03-28T18:37:48Z")

</div>

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, Rick DeNatale wrote:

> Well, you might do a diff on any included files.
> 
> diff ruby1.8.4/ruby.h ruby1.8.5/ruby.h shows that there ARE  
> differences, which would indicate to me that it’s probably not wise to  
> count on binary compatibility.

i always recompile all extensions when an upgrade comes out. i’ve had  
issues  
in the past when i didn’t.

-a