On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 01:33:17PM +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 11:09:58AM +0000, Matthias Scheler wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 09:57:24PM +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> > > > I'm sorry but I think this is awkward. If we decided to branch over
> > > > to the "xcursor" package we should stick with that decision and
> > > > not simply change our mind and use "libXcursor" instead.
> > > 
> > > As Jeremy wrote -- libXcursor is the successor of the xcursor package
> > > and xcursor is just archaic.
> > 
> > Can "libXcursor" be used on a XFree86 system?
> 
> With the builtin.mk magic for the dependencies, yes. E.g. builtin.mk
> would have to create fake .pc files.

I see. That sounds painful and like a lot of work.

All I want to achieve know is to get non-trivial X11 packages built
under Mac OS 10.5. And that would only require that the "libXcursor"
package doesn't insist that everything other than modular X.org from
"pkgsrc" uses "x11/xcursor". And I think this solution should *not*
require any changes to the "xcursor" package because that is for
"legacy support". Mac OS 10.5 isn't using a legacy X11 distribution
and should therefore not be handle via that code path.

Retiring the "xcursor" package is not really related.

	Kind regards
-- 
Matthias Scheler                                  http://zhadum.org.uk/