yoshimi bug - fixed by me !

[Folderol]

I just had a look at cal's website and found there were versions .030 -
.035 so immediately tried the latest one. This seemed to
have the VU problem solved but unfortunately locked up completely when
I tried to load a parameter file. This was true for all versions back
to 0.31.

However, .030 seemed OK, so I had the bright idea of doing a 'diff'
between the likely files. The interesting change came in masterUI.fl
where I noticed the following:

.030
        // load the data
        int result = zynMaster->loadXML(filename);
        zynMaster->actionLock(unlock);
        zynMaster->applyParameters();

.031 (and onwards)
        // load the data
        int result = zynMaster->loadXML(filename);
        zynMaster->applyParameters();
        zynMaster->actionLock(unlock);

I simply swapped those last two lines back, and all seems to be well
now. It's late now, but tomorrow I'll try to have a good old bash at it
and see what happens!

Incidentally, the files are beautifully clearly laid out now :)

--
Will J Godfrey
http://www.musically.me.uk
Say you have a poem and I have a tune.
Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@...
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user

[Cal-8]

Folderol wrote:

> I just had a look at cal's website and found there were versions .030 -
> .035 so immediately tried the latest one. This seemed to
> have the VU problem solved but unfortunately locked up completely when
> I tried to load a parameter file. This was true for all versions back
> to 0.31.
>
> However, .030 seemed OK, so I had the bright idea of doing a 'diff'
> between the likely files. The interesting change came in masterUI.fl
> where I noticed the following:
>
> .030
>         // load the data
>         int result = zynMaster->loadXML(filename);
>         zynMaster->actionLock(unlock);
>         zynMaster->applyParameters();
>
> .031 (and onwards)
>         // load the data
>         int result = zynMaster->loadXML(filename);
>         zynMaster->applyParameters();
>         zynMaster->actionLock(unlock);
>
> I simply swapped those last two lines back, and all seems to be well
> now. It's late now, but tomorrow I'll try to have a good old bash at it
> and see what happens!

Well done! And thanks.

0.036 2009-11-09 Will J Godfrey's load parameter file fix

<http://www.graggrag.com/?q=yoshimi>

> Incidentally, the files are beautifully clearly laid out now :)

just a little more readable?

cheers.

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@...
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user

[david-602]

cal wrote:

> Folderol wrote:
>> I just had a look at cal's website and found there were versions .030 -
>> .035 so immediately tried the latest one. This seemed to
>> have the VU problem solved but unfortunately locked up completely when
>> I tried to load a parameter file. This was true for all versions back
>> to 0.31.
>>
>> However, .030 seemed OK, so I had the bright idea of doing a 'diff'
>> between the likely files. The interesting change came in masterUI.fl
>> where I noticed the following:
>>
>> .030
>>         // load the data
>>         int result = zynMaster->loadXML(filename);
>>         zynMaster->actionLock(unlock);
>>         zynMaster->applyParameters();
>>
>> .031 (and onwards)
>>         // load the data
>>         int result = zynMaster->loadXML(filename);
>>         zynMaster->applyParameters();
>>         zynMaster->actionLock(unlock);
>>
>> I simply swapped those last two lines back, and all seems to be well
>> now. It's late now, but tomorrow I'll try to have a good old bash at it
>> and see what happens!
>
> Well done! And thanks.
>
> 0.036 2009-11-09 Will J Godfrey's load parameter file fix
>
> <http://www.graggrag.com/?q=yoshimi>
>
>> Incidentally, the files are beautifully clearly laid out now :)
>
> just a little more readable?

Didn't look at code, just downloaded and trying to CMake it gives me
this message:

CMake Error at CMakeLists.txt:161 (message):
    Alsa required but not found

I don't see any alsa-dev package in Debian and already have ALSA
installed and working here just fine. What Alsa is it talking about?

--
David
gnome@...
authenticity, honesty, community
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@...
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user

[garry Ogle]

david wrote:

> Didn't look at code, just downloaded and trying to CMake it gives me
> this message:
>
> CMake Error at CMakeLists.txt:161 (message):
>     Alsa required but not found
>
> I don't see any alsa-dev package in Debian and already have ALSA
> installed and working here just fine. What Alsa is it talking about?
>

libasound-dev is the one you need. (libasound2-dev in debian/testing)

~G.

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@...
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user

[david-602]

Garry Ogle wrote:

> david wrote:
>
>> Didn't look at code, just downloaded and trying to CMake it gives me
>> this message:
>>
>> CMake Error at CMakeLists.txt:161 (message):
>>     Alsa required but not found
>>
>> I don't see any alsa-dev package in Debian and already have ALSA
>> installed and working here just fine. What Alsa is it talking about?
>>
>
> libasound-dev is the one you need. (libasound2-dev in debian/testing)

I do wish scripts would call things by their real names ... ;-)

--
David
gnome@...
authenticity, honesty, community
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@...
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user

[david-602]

Garry Ogle wrote:

> david wrote:
>
>> Didn't look at code, just downloaded and trying to CMake it gives me
>> this message:
>>
>> CMake Error at CMakeLists.txt:161 (message):
>>     Alsa required but not found
>>
>> I don't see any alsa-dev package in Debian and already have ALSA
>> installed and working here just fine. What Alsa is it talking about?
>>
>
> libasound-dev is the one you need. (libasound2-dev in debian/testing)

OK, now it wants a newer version of JACK. Sigh. Don't have time for this
right now ...

--
David
gnome@...
authenticity, honesty, community
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@...
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user

[Cal-8]

david wrote:

> Garry Ogle wrote:
>> david wrote:
>>
>>> Didn't look at code, just downloaded and trying to CMake it gives me
>>> this message:
>>>
>>> CMake Error at CMakeLists.txt:161 (message):
>>>     Alsa required but not found
>>>
>>> I don't see any alsa-dev package in Debian and already have ALSA
>>> installed and working here just fine. What Alsa is it talking about?
>>>
>> libasound-dev is the one you need. (libasound2-dev in debian/testing)
>
> OK, now it wants a newer version of JACK. Sigh. Don't have time for this
> right now ...

Yoshi asks for jack>=0.115.6. If that check fails then you're running a
_really_ old jack and an upgrade would have to be a good idea, when you get
the time of course :-).
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@...
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user

[david-602]

cal wrote:

> david wrote:
>> Garry Ogle wrote:
>>> david wrote:
>>>
>>>> Didn't look at code, just downloaded and trying to CMake it gives me
>>>> this message:
>>>>
>>>> CMake Error at CMakeLists.txt:161 (message):
>>>>     Alsa required but not found
>>>>
>>>> I don't see any alsa-dev package in Debian and already have ALSA
>>>> installed and working here just fine. What Alsa is it talking about?
>>>>
>>> libasound-dev is the one you need. (libasound2-dev in debian/testing)
>> OK, now it wants a newer version of JACK. Sigh. Don't have time for this
>> right now ...
>
> Yoshi asks for jack>=0.115.6. If that check fails then you're running a
> _really_ old jack and an upgrade would have to be a good idea, when you get
> the time of course :-).

I am running the jackd that my distro provides - 0.109.2.

No why distros don't include a newer version eludes me ...

--
David
gnome@...
authenticity, honesty, community
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@...
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user

[Cal-8]

david wrote:
> [ ... ]
> I am running the jackd that my distro provides - 0.109.2.
>
> No why distros don't include a newer version eludes me ...

Indeed. You're not the first and won't be the last to ask that. Last time
this came up in the context of yoshimi, Josh Lawrence had a fairly elegant solution.
<http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-user/2009-September/063063.html>

That thread also featured a strong comment:
  jackaudio.org notes that "nobody should be using 0.109 at this point in time".

This is the modern age after all.

cheers.

 

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@...
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user

[david-602]

cal wrote:
> david wrote:
>> [ ... ]
>> I am running the jackd that my distro provides - 0.109.2.
>>
>> No why distros don't include a newer version eludes me ...
>
> Indeed. You're not the first and won't be the last to ask that. Last time
> this came up in the context of yoshimi, Josh Lawrence had a fairly elegant solution.
> <http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-user/2009-September/063063.html>

OK, tracked down the 64studio backports, and checked. It has JACK
1.9.2-0.64studio2~lenny1. That doesn't sound like 0.116.etc ...

> That thread also featured a strong comment:
>   jackaudio.org notes that "nobody should be using 0.109 at this point in time".
>
> This is the modern age after all.

This makes me ask the question, "What are the JACK developers NOT doing
that is keeping their recommendation from replacing .109 with .116 in
repositories, then?" Other programs got it done somehow ...

--
David
gnome@...
authenticity, honesty, community
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@...
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user

[david-602]

cal wrote:

> david wrote:
>> [ ... ]
>> I am running the jackd that my distro provides - 0.109.2.
>>
>> No why distros don't include a newer version eludes me ...
>
> Indeed. You're not the first and won't be the last to ask that. Last time
> this came up in the context of yoshimi, Josh Lawrence had a fairly elegant solution.
> <http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-user/2009-September/063063.html>
>
> That thread also featured a strong comment:
>   jackaudio.org notes that "nobody should be using 0.109 at this point in time".
>
> This is the modern age after all.

I just added lenny-backports to my repositories, reloaded, and it still
says 0.109 is the latest version.

--
David
gnome@...
authenticity, honesty, community
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@...
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user

[Cal-8]

david wrote:

> cal wrote:
>> david wrote:
>>> [ ... ]
>>> I am running the jackd that my distro provides - 0.109.2.
>>>
>>> No why distros don't include a newer version eludes me ...
>> Indeed. You're not the first and won't be the last to ask that. Last time
>> this came up in the context of yoshimi, Josh Lawrence had a fairly elegant solution.
>> <http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-user/2009-September/063063.html>
>
> OK, tracked down the 64studio backports, and checked. It has JACK
> 1.9.2-0.64studio2~lenny1. That doesn't sound like 0.116.etc ...

ah, but it is in fact very much like 0.116 etc, see <http://www.jackaudio.org/node/24>  
>> That thread also featured a strong comment:
>>   jackaudio.org notes that "nobody should be using 0.109 at this point in time".
>>
>> This is the modern age after all.
>
> This makes me ask the question, "What are the JACK developers NOT doing
> that is keeping their recommendation from replacing .109 with .116 in
> repositories, then?" Other programs got it done somehow ...
That's so far off the mark I really have to leave it alone.

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@...
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user

[david-602]

david wrote:

> cal wrote:
>> david wrote:
>>> [ ... ]
>>> I am running the jackd that my distro provides - 0.109.2.
>>>
>>> No why distros don't include a newer version eludes me ...
>> Indeed. You're not the first and won't be the last to ask that. Last time
>> this came up in the context of yoshimi, Josh Lawrence had a fairly elegant solution.
>> <http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-user/2009-September/063063.html>
>
> OK, tracked down the 64studio backports, and checked. It has JACK
> 1.9.2-0.64studio2~lenny1. That doesn't sound like 0.116.etc ...

I installed that, and it's jackdmp 1.9.2. Yoshimi doesn't accept that,
either.

--
David
gnome@...
authenticity, honesty, community
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@...
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user

[hollunder]

On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:01:59 -1000
david <gnome@...> wrote:

> cal wrote:
> > david wrote:
> >> [ ... ]
> >> I am running the jackd that my distro provides - 0.109.2.
> >>
> >> No why distros don't include a newer version eludes me ...
> >
> > Indeed. You're not the first and won't be the last to ask that.
> > Last time this came up in the context of yoshimi, Josh Lawrence had
> > a fairly elegant solution.
> > <http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-user/2009-September/063063.html>
>
> OK, tracked down the 64studio backports, and checked. It has JACK
> 1.9.2-0.64studio2~lenny1. That doesn't sound like 0.116.etc ...

It isn't, it's jack2, formerly known as jackdmp.

> > That thread also featured a strong comment:
> >   jackaudio.org notes that "nobody should be using 0.109 at this
> > point in time".
> >
> > This is the modern age after all.

This was almost a year ago. (and it feels like three years)

> This makes me ask the question, "What are the JACK developers NOT
> doing that is keeping their recommendation from replacing .109
> with .116 in repositories, then?" Other programs got it done
> somehow ...

It seems distributions are simply too slow, especially debian based
ones. At least that's my impression.
Don't quite get it in the case of 64studio where jack is an essential
part. Guess they focused on the next version before bothering with that.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@...
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user

[david-602]

david wrote:

> david wrote:
>> cal wrote:
>>> david wrote:
>>>> [ ... ]
>>>> I am running the jackd that my distro provides - 0.109.2.
>>>>
>>>> No why distros don't include a newer version eludes me ...
>>> Indeed. You're not the first and won't be the last to ask that. Last time
>>> this came up in the context of yoshimi, Josh Lawrence had a fairly elegant solution.
>>> <http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-user/2009-September/063063.html>
>> OK, tracked down the 64studio backports, and checked. It has JACK
>> 1.9.2-0.64studio2~lenny1. That doesn't sound like 0.116.etc ...
>
> I installed that, and it's jackdmp 1.9.2. Yoshimi doesn't accept that,
> either.

I just fired up the Ubuntu Studio-based Artist X 0.70 I have on the
synthesizer/effects box, and it also has jackd 0.109.

The Musix 2.0 beta has jackd 0.116.1. Perhaps I can get yoshimi to
compile on it. That would be very nice, because Zyn 2.4 on Music 2.0
beta likes to freeze up. The drawback to it is that Musix 2.0 has great
difficulty seeing my USB soundcard ... Let's see!

Nope, that doesn't work, either. Even after installing CMake to it,
trying to generate yoshimi just tells me that CMake can't find the C
compiler.

Stupid computers.

--
David
gnome@...
authenticity, honesty, community
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@...
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user

[Jonathan E. Brickman-2]

> I just added lenny-backports to my repositories, reloaded, and it still
> says 0.109 is the latest version.
>  
In a small nutshell, this and many other very similar frustrations, is
why I do not use 64studio anymore.  I would try AVLinux.

J.E.B.


_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@...
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user

[david-602]

hollunder@... wrote:

> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:01:59 -1000
> david <gnome@...> wrote:
>
>> cal wrote:
>>> david wrote:
>>>> [ ... ]
>>>> I am running the jackd that my distro provides - 0.109.2.
>>>>
>>>> No why distros don't include a newer version eludes me ...
>>> Indeed. You're not the first and won't be the last to ask that.
>>> Last time this came up in the context of yoshimi, Josh Lawrence had
>>> a fairly elegant solution.
>>> <http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-user/2009-September/063063.html>
>> OK, tracked down the 64studio backports, and checked. It has JACK
>> 1.9.2-0.64studio2~lenny1. That doesn't sound like 0.116.etc ...
>
> It isn't, it's jack2, formerly known as jackdmp.
>
>>> That thread also featured a strong comment:
>>>   jackaudio.org notes that "nobody should be using 0.109 at this
>>> point in time".
>>>
>>> This is the modern age after all.
>
> This was almost a year ago. (and it feels like three years)
>
>> This makes me ask the question, "What are the JACK developers NOT
>> doing that is keeping their recommendation from replacing .109
>> with .116 in repositories, then?" Other programs got it done
>> somehow ...
>
> It seems distributions are simply too slow, especially debian based
> ones. At least that's my impression.

Weird, but other programs (general use ones) seem to be much closer to
"current" versions than JACK is. I wonder if there isn't some
hoop-jumping jackaudio hasn't done properly for Debian. Or maybe the
Debian folk in charge of approving JACK versions for inclusion in Debian
worship at the altar of Pulseaudio and just want to make JACK go away.
(I know, nobody involved in open source would be deliberately sabotaging
a competitor.)

> Don't quite get it in the case of 64studio where jack is an essential
> part. Guess they focused on the next version before bothering with that.

Possible. I can't install the DVD releases of 64Studio on my music box -
its optical drive doesn't seem reliably read all of a DVD - and while it
will boot from a flash drive, I haven't found any Linux audio distros
that will install from a flash drive. They all insist on looking for an
install CD. And nobody seems to make netboot installs anymore except
Debian's stock distro.

--
David
gnome@...
authenticity, honesty, community
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@...
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user

[david-602]

Jonathan E. Brickman wrote:
>> I just added lenny-backports to my repositories, reloaded, and it still
>> says 0.109 is the latest version.
>>  
> In a small nutshell, this and many other very similar frustrations, is
> why I do not use 64studio anymore.  I would try AVLinux.

Doesn't sound promising: "AV Linux 2.0 is a LiveDVD ISO image". The
optical drive on my music box can't reliably read DVDs.

--
David
gnome@...
authenticity, honesty, community
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@...
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user

[hollunder]

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:52:46 -1000
david <gnome@...> wrote:

> hollunder@... wrote:
> > On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:01:59 -1000
> > david <gnome@...> wrote:
> >
> >> cal wrote:
> >>> david wrote:
> >>>> [ ... ]
> >>>> I am running the jackd that my distro provides - 0.109.2.
> >>>>
> >>>> No why distros don't include a newer version eludes me ...
> >>> Indeed. You're not the first and won't be the last to ask that.
> >>> Last time this came up in the context of yoshimi, Josh Lawrence
> >>> had a fairly elegant solution.
> >>> <http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-user/2009-September/063063.html>
> >> OK, tracked down the 64studio backports, and checked. It has JACK
> >> 1.9.2-0.64studio2~lenny1. That doesn't sound like 0.116.etc ...
> >
> > It isn't, it's jack2, formerly known as jackdmp.
> >
> >>> That thread also featured a strong comment:
> >>>   jackaudio.org notes that "nobody should be using 0.109 at this
> >>> point in time".
> >>>
> >>> This is the modern age after all.
> >
> > This was almost a year ago. (and it feels like three years)
> >
> >> This makes me ask the question, "What are the JACK developers NOT
> >> doing that is keeping their recommendation from replacing .109
> >> with .116 in repositories, then?" Other programs got it done
> >> somehow ...
> >
> > It seems distributions are simply too slow, especially debian based
> > ones. At least that's my impression.
>
> Weird, but other programs (general use ones) seem to be much closer
> to "current" versions than JACK is. I wonder if there isn't some
> hoop-jumping jackaudio hasn't done properly for Debian. Or maybe the
> Debian folk in charge of approving JACK versions for inclusion in
> Debian worship at the altar of Pulseaudio and just want to make JACK
> go away. (I know, nobody involved in open source would be
> deliberately sabotaging a competitor.)

There also seems to be a long-standing issue with jack in debian, they
messed p some naming years ago and didn't manage to fix to date and
this causes some issues as well. I don't know the details tough.
I don't know what the source of all this trouble is, but pretty much
all distros get it right.
There's was an interesting post: http://ardour.org/node/2543

> > Don't quite get it in the case of 64studio where jack is an
> > essential part. Guess they focused on the next version before
> > bothering with that.
>
> Possible. I can't install the DVD releases of 64Studio on my music
> box - its optical drive doesn't seem reliably read all of a DVD - and
> while it will boot from a flash drive, I haven't found any Linux
> audio distros that will install from a flash drive. They all insist
> on looking for an install CD. And nobody seems to make netboot
> installs anymore except Debian's stock distro.

This is a pity, especially since flash drives get bigger than DVDs.
Haven't really looked into it, but it would seem logical for a number
of reasons to move from DVD to flash, not the other way around.

Regards,
Philipp

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@...
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user

[Arnold Krille-3]

On Tuesday 10 November 2009 11:52:46 david wrote:
> install CD. And nobody seems to make netboot installs anymore except
> Debian's stock distro.

Last time I checked (half a year ago) ubuntu also had netboot-files for
install. Or you use the minimal CD version which is just around 100MB or so.

Arnold


_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@...
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user