My synth requires security permission to install Ruby...

[nix]

Heya,
I have put some more time into my synth,
the automation parameter names fix is great.
But now I am having some people use it,
I have an issue.
It's similar to this->
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=586
Here are the 2 errors from Reaper, Win XP 32 (SP3). Intel Core 2 Duo @ 3.16GHz, 4GB DDR2 memory
->

Entrancer bug report (regular version Reaper load error message).jpg (44.49 KiB) Viewed 25512 times

This version has no ruby components

Entrancer bug report (VGER version Reaper load error message).jpg (34.04 KiB) Viewed 25512 times

This version has an empty ruby codebox

What can I do?
I have reccomended him to install the free versiopn of FS to get the ruby .dll onto his system,
but I'd like installs to be as trouble free as possible for users--so damn...

Here is the VSTi in question->
http://www.sendspace.com/pro/dl/md6e6f

Cheers

[billv]

to get the ruby .dll onto his system,

You mean the Ruby dll dosn't get installed when a user installs the plug-in??
Is that the current behaviour of FS? Can't be right. Still on FS Free, so I'm not sure.
If thats the way it is, you'll have to find a way to include it your installer, so it deploys
on the user's machine. A real pain.

[support]

The ruby dll currently is wrapped up with the plugin dll and extracted to the App Data folder when the plugin is opened. We're trying to see if there is a better way of doing this but for now this is how it works so the dll should be present on the user's XP machine.

For XP the App Data folder is here:
C:\Documents And Settings\[user name]\Application Data

Check if the dll is present in that folder. If it is then it could well be the same issue that billv had with missing elements from XP, in which case there is a suggested solution there on the thread you linked to above that is worth trying.

[trogluddite]

@nix
Downloaded your plugin - works OK on both of my machines, even if I rename the installed FS version of the .dll so that it can't be found elsewhere. Both machines are XP32 SP3 (Atom N270 and Q6700 CPU's) - so it's not XP per se that's the problem. I've only had one or two FS crashes the whole time I've been using it, and they were most likely just my experimental dabbling.

Dont know if it's any help, but assuming you can find the .dll on your system, you might take a peek at it with Dependency Walker.
No big install, it's just an .exe, and totally free - it's used in some of the proper Windows development packages, so is a "kosher" tool to use.
If you open a .dll file with it, it will tell you what other .dll files that one depends upon (the error messages can sometimes be misleading because they often show only the "top level" .dll's name when really it's some other thing that's missing).
Don't worry about all the techy details - but do press F9 to show full file-paths. In the list of dependent files near the bottom, ones that can't be found are put at the top of the list with a little highlight.
You can then save a report of what the program has found to disk - maybe this would help support to find out what it is that the .dll can't find, so that the problem can be nailed down.

Oddly, I get a few "not founds" on my PC even though my system works fine - but I guess those are false positives that never actually get called.

And thank to my mate Jonny at work - he put me on to this the other day when .NET was messing with my system (again!).

[nix]

OK-
We got it going.
It required the .dll in the C:\Documents And Settings\[user name]\Application Data
Probably security permissionms did not allow the plug to unpack it to there.
So am I free to distribute this .dll?
Thanks for testing Trog, that's great it works, I don't have to call it incompatible.
I'll change the thread title.
The sequencer is a bit broken, I'll send the fixed one if you like it.
Could msvcr90-ruby191.dll be written into the compiled plug file somehow?
People don't like support files much.
Thanks people for helping me suss this out

[billv]

security permissionms

Hey , I need to clarify something here, as my synth is ready for release, and I want to avoid
any installation issues by the user like Nix experienced here. I'm on XP, and ignorant of these
permissions and adminstator stuff.
I understand this,

extracted to the App Data folder when the plugin is opened

but,
What really happens during a Windows Vista/7/8 install?
How did this (Nix's)user error happen in the first place?

And Nix, this is unclear for me

We got it going.
It required the .dll in the C:\Documents And Settings\[user name]\Application Data
Probably security permissionms did not allow the plug to unpack it to there.

So the user had to manually put it in? Is that right?

Looks like a "statement" about the "ruby deal" is nescessary to prevent negative user feedback.....

[nix]

The user is on XP,
he had configured his system not to allow programs to do things like this,
thus the error.
On Win7/8 the Ruby .dll is extracted to an equivalent folder.
He had to put it in manually,
or he ccould have changed the security setting for the VST.dll perhaps.
So yeah, when distributing programs,
I reckon, yep, make a statement about the ruby .dll,
and also provide the details of how to get it working,
if it is blocked by file permissions.
I would provide the ruby.dll as a download also.
Cheers

[billv]

Thanks Nix. I dunno mate. I might be better off waiting.......

We're trying to see if there is a better way of doing this

Can the ruby dll live within an exported dll or exe? Is that possible?
Or will the ruby dll always be outside the exported dll or exe? Like forever?..

[nix]

They are trying to do this currently.
They have got it to link,
but it's not behaving correctly yet.
RDSP said it's a really hard task.
On most systems the ruby .dll will be invisible to the user,
so maybe u don't have to hold off.

[billv]

They are trying to do this currently.

That's great. Hopefully they will find a way to wrap the X-Box dll in there as well.
The X-Box part of my synth is a casualty in the 2.0 update, cause it required another
dll download, and I didn't want to in-convienence the user. Would be nice to bring it back...