Community Packages

Please read this before reporting a bug:

Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.

REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!

FS#70128 - [obs-studio] Build with obs-vst submodule

Attached to Project: Community Packages
Opened by Trystan Mata (tytan652) - Monday, 22 March 2021, 21:01 GMT
Last edited by Jonathan Steel (jsteel) - Tuesday, 21 September 2021, 20:50 GMT
Task Type Feature Request
Category Packages
Status Closed
Assigned To Jonathan Steel (jsteel)
Architecture All
Severity Medium
Priority Normal
Reported Version
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 2
Private No


The package does not have obs-vst built-in.
Is it possible to build obs-studio package with the obs-vst sub-module ?

Note: in the upcoming 27 version of obs-studio, the use of VST_PATH in obs-vst is fixed.

This task depends upon

Closed by  Jonathan Steel (jsteel)
Tuesday, 21 September 2021, 20:50 GMT
Reason for closing:  Upstream
Additional comments about closing:  Ask upstream to make a full release if this should be included.
Comment by Arnaud Dovi (cIass101) - Wednesday, 30 June 2021, 15:48 GMT

Ideally, community/obs-studio must include VST + BROWSER, they are very popular components and will satisfy a larger audience.

It is not a good idea to offer too few options to the user especially in this era of Streaming.

I know we can use aur/obs-studio-browser, but it is git stability.

There are a lot of vst-plugins maintained in the official repo so why not bring vst support in the first place ???
Comment by Trystan Mata (tytan652) - Wednesday, 30 June 2021, 16:08 GMT
It seems you have a misconception about obs-studio-browser package, the fact it use git to obtain sources with a specified version tag does not mean it's unstable.
What could be considered unstable is using the git master directly what most "-git" packages does.

Browser will not be added, look here
Comment by Jonathan Steel (jsteel) - Friday, 02 July 2021, 20:18 GMT
One of my issues here is upstream does not include these things in their release. Arch will generally take what upstream releases and package that, which is what has happened here. Of course enabling build options and adding dependencies is a common thing to do to add additional features but here, it seems they want us to pull from git in order to obtain software that they do not include in their release. Call me confused with this decision.

While it is possible to switch to git I had another concern over the browser plugin so I stuck with the main release. Now, is it worth switching to git to be able to provide this plugin? Well, to satisfy the 2 users who have voted for this feature request I'm sitting on it for now. I'd like to see upstream provide a full release that includes these, or some evidence that obs has worked with the latest cef version without issues for some time before reconsidering switching to git.
Comment by Trystan Mata (tytan652) - Friday, 02 July 2021, 21:00 GMT
I don't know if you know this but github source code tarball doesn't contain submodule, so github will never release a "full" source code tarball with submodules.

I think everyone who wanted the VST plugin in OBS have just switched to an AUR package and didn't even think about coming here and ask for it or vote.

Is it worth it ? I don't know.
Example: this is not because I don't use FTL protocol that I didn't added in my AUR recipe. Is it worth it to add it ? I may will never know.
I just wanted to try to provide the most feature complete OBS with some additions of mine.
And two or three people on the OBS discord thanked me for providing vlc-luajit and/or obs-studio-tytan652.

For the CEF version question, we are out of the scope of this ticket. And no it doesn't work with the latest version of CEF.
And it will evolve slowly for many reasons.
Comment by Jonathan Steel (jsteel) - Tuesday, 21 September 2021, 20:49 GMT
Reviewing this a few months later and my opinions have not changed here and we have no further votes or arguments for this proposal so I'm going to close. Only thing I wanted to note was you make it sound like upstream have no other means but to host their release on github; considering they could host it themselves I hope makes it clear what my expectations were here.