Many thanks
Olivar
Statistics: Posted by oli_lab — 03 Jul 2015, 11:44
]]>
I guess you got tired of waiting for me... I'm sorry about that. So many projects at once, and a summer to enjoy as well.
You should modify one of the existing Xcode project files. Then there is a 'Rename' option.
Honestly it took a while for me to figure it out, and it is still kind of annoying even after I have figured it out.
I hope I will have time to put together some screenshots for how to do it.
Statistics: Posted by ceasless — 03 Jul 2015, 10:32
]]>
]]>
Hi,
what software should I use to compile SDK module in OSX ?
thanx
xcode, which should be freely downloadable from the apple store.what software should I use to compile SDK module in OSX ?
thanx
ideally, xcode v3.2.6 on osx 10.6 to be compatible with osx 10.6
xcode, starting from osx 10.7 to 10.10 cant compile for 10.6 because of coreaudio change in osx
Statistics: Posted by martignasse — 24 Jun 2015, 19:53
]]>
thanx
Statistics: Posted by oli_lab — 24 Jun 2015, 16:39
]]>
]]>
git can be tricky. Usually if you google around with the error, you can find something. I will help with whatever I can too.
Statistics: Posted by ceasless — 18 Jun 2015, 18:56
]]>
edit : it is done now !
Olivar
Statistics: Posted by oli_lab — 18 Jun 2015, 15:05
]]>
I can't find anything in visual studio that allows me to point to the files without the ../../sdk part in the .h file.
as it is not a life threatening situation as well as I am not a purist (!) that will stay as long as I sort it out the easy way.
maybe a window-sdk user can help ?
thanx
Statistics: Posted by oli_lab — 01 Jun 2015, 19:37
]]>
But in Visual Studio, you should be able to add files to the project without adding them to the directory itself.
So if you open one of the projects, you should be able to add the files that are found in hollyhock-grove/sdk to the project, and then the compiler should be able to find them without the "../../sdk" part.
At least in Xcode it works this way.
Statistics: Posted by ceasless — 01 Jun 2015, 11:57
]]>
I uploaded modules.
>>oli_lab, I had to remove the "../../sdk/" part of the ' #include "UserDefinitions.h" ' in your .h files. It is better if we take care of this in the project files themselves. Usually you can include files into the project and they become "visible" to the compiler without any directory stuff.
do you mean I have to copy "UserDefinitions.h" in the project directory ?
Statistics: Posted by oli_lab — 31 May 2015, 23:44
]]>
oli_lab/23fx23, can you update/add add-ons with the new OS X binaries too? This may help find any bugs more quickly as well.
And sorry for the long delay! It should not take so long with any of your future contributions.oli_lab, I had to remove the "../../sdk/" part of the ' #include "UserDefinitions.h" ' in your .h files. It is better if we take care of this in the project files themselves. Usually you can include files into the project and they become "visible" to the compiler without any directory stuff. This makes it much easier to move projects around between computers.
There was one more change I made, which was to change '_sleep(160)' to 'std::this_thread::sleep_for( std::chrono::milliseconds(160) );', because '_sleep' is only available on Windows. This was in the antiPOe12 module. If it gives you any trouble, let me know! It requires C++11, but that's okay for most cases I think. It means the minimum version of OS X is 10.7 for this module. But C++11 makes so many things so much nicer, I don't think there is enough reason to avoid it.
It was an honor compiling your code
Statistics: Posted by ceasless — 31 May 2015, 19:25
]]>
Here is a link to download the Grove as a zip file: https://github.com/ab5tract/hollyhock-g ... master.zip
Then you can add the modules from the right bin directory for your OS and (osx, win32, or win64) to Hollyhock and everything should be there for testing.
oli_lab/23fx23, can you update/add add-ons with the new OS X binaries too? This may help find any bugs more quickly as well.
I will add links to the first post.
Statistics: Posted by ceasless — 31 May 2015, 14:44
]]>
https://github.com/ab5tract/hollyhock-grove
Statistics: Posted by nay-seven — 31 May 2015, 14:33
]]>
I have successfully compiled for OS X all of the module code that has been added to the Grove so far. The only exception was oli_lab's 'Wander' module, which requires a library called 'Eigen' which I did not look into fixing yet.
oli_lab, if you can add this library to the '17 wander' directory, I can give it another go!
I haven't had a chance to test the modules yet, but I do not expect them to be broken. Any help testing would be appreciated.
You can find the modules in the 'bin/os-x' directory.
Statistics: Posted by ceasless — 31 May 2015, 14:20
]]>
lots of great ideas and contributions, like it
We (the sensomusic team) were thinking about something similar in addition to the SDK repository, a kind of community repository for user module developer
About the "official aspect", We see it more in the sens of offering to the community an unified and guaranteed access to the SDK and user contributed modules in the same place.
Of course this SDKCommunity repository would be completely independent and separate of the SDK and any official release.
Just a place to centralize published user module, and a good place for the community to help each other and grow.
yep, interesting, and github is surely more suited for this kind of use, we are openAnyway, the idea of github is that no one is the authority, and if I were to stop caring tomorrow, someone else can pickup the work without a single problem.
well, a repository is a good start in the right direction.I reckon we need a repository but there is a real issue as to keep the modules up-to-date, verified from bugs and various memory holes...
it is a big work.
sources should be available for modules to be cross-platform compiled as well.
about update, maintenance, cross-compile, we can't and don't want to provide any support or services but with good tools, a growing community can be very surprising
sorry one this one, but it's typically what we try to avoid, i mean we don't want to distribute some user modules package officially.oli_lab, my idea was that only module developers would really be interested in the Grove repository. But then we can create a small release script which will create a 'Grove' add-on that will be uploaded to sensomusic.org. This would keep the unofficial modules separate from the official ones, but also make things much easier for users to test and use these modules. Right now they have to find links placed all over the forums and install manually (and maybe manually for each release).
it's where we think ' official is a bad idea'
But a Community driven addons Pack is more than welcome and we will promote it, for sure
But you are the community, so let discuss this, i'm sure we'll found a good solution for all of us
ex: do you think github is a better tool for the task, what about the git integration on sourceforge ?
Statistics: Posted by martignasse — 22 Apr 2015, 17:29
]]>
Statistics: Posted by 23fx23 — 22 Apr 2015, 12:47
]]>
]]>
By the way, I was on Sourceforge checking out Faust when I saw them advertising easy integration with github. So it seems like it will not be a problem to create an official "community add-ons" release out of the Grove when it makes sense to do so.
I haven't had time to try, but I would like to have both Windows and OS X builds for all modules before releasing the current set of modules as an add-on.
Statistics: Posted by ceasless — 22 Apr 2015, 01:34
]]>
oli_lab, my idea was that only module developers would really be interested in the Grove repository. But then we can create a small release script which will create a 'Grove' add-on that will be uploaded to sensomusic.org. This would keep the unofficial modules separate from the official ones, but also make things much easier for users to test and use these modules. Right now they have to find links placed all over the forums and install manually (and maybe manually for each release).
Anyway, nothing is locked down at the moment. Glad to spark discussion!
Statistics: Posted by ceasless — 20 Apr 2015, 15:57
]]>
Statistics: Posted by 23fx23 — 20 Apr 2015, 13:58
]]>
sources should be available for modules to be cross-platform compiled as well.
what is needed also is an option in HH2 for a separate user module directory for them to be clearly identified as not being part of Usine vanilla
my two cents
Olivar
Statistics: Posted by oli_lab — 20 Apr 2015, 13:25
]]>
]]>
It seems weird to me, to say that trying to collect things which no one bothered to collect before should be stopped until something else happens. Why drag down an effort that is already underway?
Anyway, the idea of github is that no one is the authority, and if I were to stop caring tomorrow, someone else can pickup the work without a single problem. Sourceforge is less flexible. All updates will need to go through martignesse , who seems like a pretty busy guy.
But I will go along with how other people feel...
Statistics: Posted by ceasless — 20 Apr 2015, 09:12
]]>
]]>