# RubyGems Beta 0.9.0.9 **URL:** \ **Category:** Ruby\ **Created:** [January 8, 2007, 2:21am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubygems-beta-0-9-0-9/81340 "2007-01-08T02:21:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![miracleofmagick](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/71c47a/32.png) [@miracleofmagick](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/miracleofmagick)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2007, 2:21am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubygems-beta-0-9-0-9/81340/1 "2007-01-08T02:21:34Z")
Beta version 0.9.0.9 is now available with: gem update --system --source [http://onestepback.org/betagems](http://onestepback.org/betagems) This will be the last beta with major changes before the release of 0.9.1. = Upgrade note While require\_gem was deprecated in 0.9.0, the bin stubs are still using it (oops!). To get rid of the warnings printed by rake or other bin stubs simply run ‘gem pristine --all’. = What’s new since 0.9.0? Lots! Many changes both big and small! Here’s an incomplete summary: - require\_gem is deprecated and will print a warning. Use gem instead. - RubyGems now requires ruby 1.8.2 or greater. - gem command changes - new gem pristine command - new gem outdated command - new gem sources command - gem uninstall can uninstall multiple gems - gem install uses the cache instead of downloading - gem install returns non-zero exit code on failure - gem install can now set shebang on bin stubs (env or ruby) - gem help output now fits in 80 columns - now -w clean - many proxy installation improvements - gem cert improvements - RubyGems is now easier to use as a library - Easier programatic installs - Easier inspection of local and remote gems - extension building enhancements - error reporting enhancements (less odd exceptions) - many bugs fixed or closed (0 bugs in tracker!) - require now loads .jar files - select bug fixes: - installing from scratch fixed - gem install --force forces - installing from read-only location works - gem uninstall requires full name - gem install obeys GEM\_HOME for bin scripts - RubyGems now installs on ruby 1.9 == New since beta 0.9.0.8 - fixed issue with Gem::Specification#hash for JRuby - RubyGems now installs RDoc and ri for itself - RubyGems is now tab-free - require\_gem warning prints file and line information For full details, read the ChangeLog. – Eric H. - removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid - [http://blog.segment7.net](http://blog.segment7.net) I LIT YOUR GEM ON FIRE! ---
**Author:** ![miracleofmagick](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/71c47a/32.png) [@miracleofmagick](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/miracleofmagick)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2007, 2:52am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubygems-beta-0-9-0-9/81340/2 "2007-01-08T02:52:36Z")
On Jan 7, 2007, at 17:21, Eric H. wrote: > Beta version 0.9.0.9 is now available with: > > gem update --system --source [http://onestepback.org/betagems](http://onestepback.org/betagems) File not found: GPL.txt Has been fixed. – Eric H. - removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid - [http://blog.segment7.net](http://blog.segment7.net) I LIT YOUR GEM ON FIRE! ---
**Author:** ![miracleofmagick](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/71c47a/32.png) [@miracleofmagick](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/miracleofmagick)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2007, 6:21am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubygems-beta-0-9-0-9/81340/3 "2007-01-08T06:21:49Z")
Eric H. wrote: > Beta version 0.9.0.9 is now available [snip] > = What’s new since 0.9.0? > > Lots! Many changes both big and small! Here’s an incomplete summary: Out of curiosity, what is the rationale behind your version numbering? (I’ve never seen a system where deprecations, changes the API, new features, and more warranted so tiny a numeric bump. Not a criticism, just a curiosity.) ---
**Author:** ![miracleofmagick](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/71c47a/32.png) [@miracleofmagick](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/miracleofmagick)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2007, 6:40am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubygems-beta-0-9-0-9/81340/4 "2007-01-08T06:40:49Z")
On Jan 7, 2007, at 21:20, Phrogz wrote: > features, and more warranted so tiny a numeric bump. Not a criticism, > just a curiosity.) I follow Jim’s lead, but I may not follow too well. (Currently, RubyGems API is so unfriendly to anybody other than RubyGems that people run the gem command in a subshell. When the library is that unfriendly, I think its OK to change APIs and have weird versions.) – Eric H. - removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid - [http://blog.segment7.net](http://blog.segment7.net) I LIT YOUR GEM ON FIRE!