Jucetice Forum

great, a simple #define VSTCALLBACK in aeffect.h did the trick.

thanks a lot!

daniel

kRAkEn/gORe wrote:

ah, if you publish something... feel free to post your releases here!
Jucetice will be proud to test new plugins ! eheh

sure, ill get back to you as soon as I got my stuff to run. its a port of jVSTwRapper to Linux, maybe you know the project already: http://jvstwrapper.sf.net


cheers,
daniel.

well, I am the author

hope that I have the linux version ready soon (compiles already, but somehow isnt loaded by neither: Jost or energyXT).

btw: The java gui stuff may be a nice solution for crossplatform plug guis. somehow in competition to your linux port of vstgui

Ill get back to you when I finally get it to work. If not, ill again desperately ask for linux vst consulting...

cheers,
daniel.

Last edited by daniel309 (2007-03-26 00:31:03)

daniel309 wrote:

... a simple #define VSTCALLBACK in aeffect.h did the trick.

Nice to see the vstwrapper project is moving along. Be sure to notify Steinberg that you've changed their code, they'll want to know about it.

kRAkEn/gORe wrote:

i think steinberg don't support linux at all. newer versions of vstgui have the old motif part leaved out, and all the vstsdk headers doesn't even take care of any linux build. i don't think they are insterested too much in knowing this... but i hope i'm totally  wrong !

[Beware, disjointed ramblings follow!]

My comment was a bit of bad joke, I'm afraid. Csound developer Michael Gogins stated that he made several attempts at contacting someone at Steinberg re: license changes, because his CsoundVST code used (and altered) the VST SDK headers. He got no response at all. Ico Bukvic at linuxaudio.org has been trying to do something in that direction too but he also got no response from Steinberg.

I know that altering Steinberg's code is expressly forbidden by its license. Under any other circumstances I'd avoid this project like the plague *but* I believe that VST support is crucial to attracting more musicians and audio people to Linux, and there seems no other project that might convince Steinberg of the need to change their license terms. At this point I feel that presenting the company with a 'fait accompli' could make them see that it's to their benefit if the VST API is acceptably supported by Linux, and Lucio's project is the only one headed in that direction.

Btw, do not think that I'm singling out JOST. The FST project also requires alteration to come of the SDK code, and it's just as much at risk as JOST.

At some point the license issues will need to be seriously addressed. Meanwhile I hope that the JOST project continues to develop and that more VST plugins get ported. The necessary rewrites are unfortunate, and of course the current licensing forbids redistribution, but as Lucio claims, the project is in alpha-stage. When it hits beta it may attract more attention, including possibly unwelcome attention (from Steinberg and its new corporate masters).

Also btw: Don't think that because your project is a personal endeavor that you're beyond the reach of Steinberg's legal department. Some years ago a fellow released a beautiful emulation of ReBirth for Linux. He was contacted by Propellerheads and was forced to discontinue his project. So, it happens.

From our point of view we find it hard to imagine why a company would *not* want its products to be compatible with Linux. But from the POV of some of the major commercial music software companies perhaps Linux is a very unwelcome presence, and the availability of powerful libre audio software means less market share for them. Also, there's no ad revenue from Linux audio software, but there's plenty from the commercial entities, and they're the ones whose ads fill the pages of Sound On Sound, Keyboard, Electronic Musician, etc. Little wonder that there's little or no coverage of the Linux audio world in those journals.

All of which is to say that it's going to be an uphill battle in every respect. Welcome to the struggle.

kRAkEn/gORe wrote:

Hi daniel,
i think that vstsdk2.4 needs some tweaking to make it compile under linux: i suggest you to use 2.3 instead, that needs no code changes at all.

Anyway the problem could be the #ifdefs on top of aeffect.h:

daniel309 wrote:

a simple #define VSTCALLBACK in aeffect.h did the trick.

This is an old thread, but:

Yes, the problem is that aeffect.h defines VSTCALLBACK to __cdecl and we don't want that on Linux.

Instead of editing aeffect.h (and thereby violating the Steinberg License), I just do like this before including it:

#define __cdecl
#include "path/to/vstsdk2.4/whatever-vst-headers.h"

It works (at least I just cleanly compiled the sample again.cpp), and I don't have to violate the license. It also makes it easier for other people who want to compile the source with their own copy of the 2.4 headers.

YMMV, please let me know if you see any problems with this approach!

Paradox Uncreated wrote:

How did you compile again?

With this Makefile (you have to adjust VST_PATH):

VST_PATH = /home/johan/projects/VST/vstsdk2.4

all: objects
        g++ -o again_vst.so -shared -fPIC -O0 -I$(VST_PATH) *.o

objects:
        g++ -c -O0 -I$(VST_PATH) -o aeff.o aeff.cpp
        g++ -c -O0 -I$(VST_PATH) -D__cdecl="" -o again.o again.cpp

and this aeff.cpp:

#define __cdecl
#include "../../../../source/vst2.x/audioeffect.cpp"
#include "../../../../source/vst2.x/audioeffectx.cpp"
#include "../../../../source/vst2.x/vstplugmain.cpp"

Paradox Uncreated wrote:

I am sorry, I am new to linux. What do you mean?

Please be more specific. You do know what a Makefile is? Please explain what you're doing and what the trouble is.

To succeed with your project, you need to read up on the standard GNU/Linux build system. Basic knowledge about make and gcc is essential. Use Google as a starting point. Maybe look here: http://www.linuxquestions.org/linux/ans … _on_Linux.

If you look carefully at my previous post, I think you'll understand. I posted the Makefile. In it, you have to adjust the VST_PATH to where you unpacked the sdk 2.4. Looking in the Makefile, you also notice that aeff.cpp is needed. I posted that as well. So all you have to do is put the Makefile togeather with again.cpp/h and aeff.cpp and type "make". If that fails, the output from make will give you hints as to what you might have missed (if VST_PATH is wrong etc).

Try it. If you really get stuck, post the error messages back here and you'll get help.