# Having a gem for 1.8 and 1.9 **URL:** \ **Category:** Ruby\ **Created:** [October 2, 2009, 7:00pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/having-a-gem-for-1-8-and-1-9/176587 "2009-10-02T19:00:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![sentinel](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/fbc32d/32.png) [@sentinel](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/sentinel)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2009, 7:00pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/having-a-gem-for-1-8-and-1-9/176587/1 "2009-10-02T19:00:40Z")
This is a simple query … I am back after a long hiatus so have forgotten some basics of gem creation. 1. ``` I am porting my gem from 1.8 to 1.9. ``` I suppose if I just create a new version of the gem, it will not be clear to a user when installing which version he should install. Should I create 2 separate gems (2 separate names??) or use a 1.9 suffix to my gem. (rbcurse and rbcurse19) 2. ``` At the same time, if a person is using 1.8 he should automatically ``` download the 1.8 version, and 1.9 users should get the 1.9 version without having to specify or know that there are 2 versions of the gem. Is this possible ? Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![sentinel](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/fbc32d/32.png) [@sentinel](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/sentinel)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2009, 11:46pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/having-a-gem-for-1-8-and-1-9/176587/2 "2009-10-02T23:46:20Z")
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 1:00 PM, (RK) Sentinel [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > This is a simple query … I am back after a long hiatus so have > forgotten some basics of gem creation. > > 1. > > ``` > I am porting my gem from 1.8 to 1.9. > > ``` > > I suppose if I just create a new version of the gem, it will not > be clear to a user when installing which version he should install. > Should I create 2 separate gems (2 separate names??) or use a 1.9 > suffix to my gem. (rbcurse and rbcurse19) If possible, I think it’s best to attempt to make 1 gem which works on both. It’s easier for a pure Ruby gem than one with C extensions. This means that you need to restrict the use of 1.9 feature inside the gem, and have a good test suite which you can run against 1.8 and 1.9. For my RiCal gem, I test against the latest 1.8.6, 1.8.7, and 1.9. I’ve found a very few cases where I needed to write different code for 1.8 vs 1.9 because of the differences in Strings, but I’ve been able to conditionally select which implementation of a few methods get “compiled” by testing the ruby version inline. – Rick DeNatale Blog: [http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/](http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/) Twitter: [http://twitter.com/RickDeNatale](http://twitter.com/RickDeNatale) WWR: [http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/9021-rick-denatale](http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/9021-rick-denatale) LinkedIn: [http://www.linkedin.com/in/rickdenatale](http://www.linkedin.com/in/rickdenatale) ---
**Author:** ![sentinel](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/fbc32d/32.png) [@sentinel](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/sentinel)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2009, 6:12am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/having-a-gem-for-1-8-and-1-9/176587/3 "2009-10-03T06:12:16Z")
Rick Denatale wrote: > 1.8 vs 1.9 because of the differences in Strings, but I’ve been able > to conditionally select which implementation of a few methods get > “compiled” by testing the ruby version inline. > > – > Rick DeNatale Could you give me a snippet of your conditional selection ? A link to your project code might help too. I’ve googled a bit, no files released on [http://rubyforge.org/frs/?group\_id=8234](http://rubyforge.org/frs/?group_id=8234) it seems. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![sentinel](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/fbc32d/32.png) [@sentinel](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/sentinel)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2009, 12:05pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/having-a-gem-for-1-8-and-1-9/176587/4 "2009-10-03T12:05:00Z")
On Oct 2, 2009, at 10:00 , (RK) Sentinel wrote: > This is a simple query … I am back after a long hiatus so have > forgotten some basics of gem creation. > > 1. > > ``` > I am porting my gem from 1.8 to 1.9. > > ``` > > I suppose if I just create a new version of the gem, it will not > be clear to a user when installing which version he should install. > Should I create 2 separate gems (2 separate names??) or use a 1.9 > suffix to my gem. (rbcurse and rbcurse19) You may want to try out: [http://tenderlovemaking.com/2009/05/07/fat-binary-gems-make-the-rockin-world-go-round/](http://tenderlovemaking.com/2009/05/07/fat-binary-gems-make-the-rockin-world-go-round/) ---
**Author:** ![sentinel](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/fbc32d/32.png) [@sentinel](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/sentinel)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2009, 9:51am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/having-a-gem-for-1-8-and-1-9/176587/5 "2009-10-03T09:51:31Z")
(RK) Sentinel wrote: > Could you give me a snippet of your conditional selection ? Here’s a small example: > The code defines a log\_gamma function: In 1.8 it uses its own Lanczos approximation algorithm written in Ruby. In 1.9 Math already defines an lgamma method with a complex result and a C-implementation which is used instead if the lgamma method is defined there. If possible it’s better to check for features you want to use from a specicific Ruby version instead of checking for the version itself. This way you are prepared if things change or features are eventually backported from Ruby 1.9. ---
**Author:** ![sentinel](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/fbc32d/32.png) [@sentinel](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/sentinel)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2009, 8:31pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/having-a-gem-for-1-8-and-1-9/176587/6 "2009-10-03T20:31:54Z")
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 12:12 AM, (RK) Sentinel [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > A link to your project code might help too. I’ve googled a bit, no files > released on [http://rubyforge.org/frs/?group\_id=8234](http://rubyforge.org/frs/?group_id=8234) it seems. Au contraire mon frere. The code is on both rubyforge and github [http://rubyforge.org/projects/ri-cal/](http://rubyforge.org/projects/ri-cal/) > **[GitHub - rubyredrick/ri\_cal: New Rfc 2445 (iCalendar) gem for Ruby](https://github.com/rubyredrick/ri_cal)** > > New Rfc 2445 (iCalendar) gem for Ruby. Contribute to rubyredrick/ri\_cal development by creating an account on GitHub. For some specific examples grep the project for “RUBY\_VERSION” so far there are only two files which are version sensitive lib/ri\_cal/component/calendar.rb and lib/ri\_cal/core\_extensions/date/conversions.rb The first file works around the difference in Strings, and the second has two methods which are included if ActiveSupport is also not loaded, and we’re not running Ruby 1.9, for two methods which ActiveSupport defines when running Ruby 1.8.x – Rick DeNatale Blog: [http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/](http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/) Twitter: [http://twitter.com/RickDeNatale](http://twitter.com/RickDeNatale) WWR: [http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/9021-rick-denatale](http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/9021-rick-denatale) LinkedIn: [http://www.linkedin.com/in/rickdenatale](http://www.linkedin.com/in/rickdenatale)