Isn't compatible with FluidSynth 2.x

[yurivict]

See log here: https://ptpb.pw/-t-8

[vlazzarini]

It's known that the fluidsynth opcodes are written for 1.x

[yurivict]

You should remove the dependency on FluidSynth then is you can't support the new version.

[rorywalsh]

Csound tries to maintain backward compatibility wherever possible. Removing the fluidsynth opcodes could break hundreds of existing Csound instruments that users spent a lot of time developing.

[yurivict]

You should consider supporting FluidSynth 2.x then, because these users won't be able to use their instruments once their FluidSynth package would update to 2.x.

[rorywalsh]

Is it possible to have both versions installed? Sorry, I know nothing of fluidsynth.

[yurivict]

@rorywalsh Currently FluidSynth isn't designed to be concurrently installed. It installs /usr/local/bin/fluidsynth, /usr/local/include/fluidsynth/* and /usr/local/lib/libfluidsynth.so.

FluidSynth project could easily uniquify these file names and allow concurrent version installations.

You should contact them and request this since you are the interested party.

[kunstmusik]

Reopening: let's leave this as a todo to support Fluidsynth 2.x as the problem is coming up often enough that it needs a fix. One path would be to have CMake detect Fluidsynth version and enable build only for 1.x, or other path to conditionally build for either 1.x or 2.x.

[yurivict]

Following up on what I said, FluidSynth could rename all files with -2 suffix opening the way to concurrent installations. They can do this even now with the next update. This way you could remain on 1.x for a long time. But this needs to be done only with FluidSynths's upstream consent.

[vlazzarini]

That's a very good idea. Maybe a ticket should be open there.

As for Csound, the fluidsynth opcodes are scheduled to move to their own separate repo.

[vlazzarini]

I would prefer that this issue is closed as far as Csound is concerned as we have to take these opcodes out of the main repo.

[yurivict]

FluidSynth rejected the idea of having the ability to install versions concurrently. Consequently, you should either convert to 2.x or abandon FluidSynth entirely, as far as most users go.

[kunstmusik]

@yurivict Does develop branch now work for you with Fluidsynth 2.x? We merged a PR (#1046) that seems to address it, but I don't have a system with 2.x at the moment to test on.

[yurivict]

It doesn't build: #1081

[kunstmusik]

That seems unrelated to Fluidsynth opcodes, but we'll need to address that.

[yurivict]

Yes, but I can't build it to verify because of this.

[dvzrv]

Also, this is a dup of #1036

[kunstmusik]

Fixed as part of #1036.