http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=908738 Michal Srb changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pgajdos@suse.com Flags| |needinfo?(pgajdos@suse.com) --- Comment #2 from Michal Srb --- Created attachment 617486 --> http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/attachment.cgi?id=617486&action=edit FLTK cursor patch The problem is that tigervnc needs patched version of fltk to be able to change cursors. The attached patch is distributed with tigervnc. Fedora, for example, is applying it to their fltk. Petr, would it be acceptable to apply this patch into our fltk as well? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=908738 Michal Srb changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(pgajdos@suse.com) --- Comment #5 from Michal Srb --- (In reply to Petr Gajdos from comment #4)

In my opinion, they should have to be pushed upstream on the first place, not downstream. Are there some bugs opened against fltk? I think you should ask 'people from tigervnc' if they notified fltk upstream and what was the result.

Sorry, I have no time to maintain a big patch set.

Ok, understandable. I searched if they ever tried to upstream these patches and why they weren't accepted and instead I found that they got accepted quite recently and are in current release 1.3.3. We currently have 1.3.2 in current openSUSE and SLES12. So follow up question: Would it be possible to upgrade fltk to 1.3.3, or should I backport the upstream patches into 1.3.2? In the second case, it would probably be svn revisions 9974, 10196 and 10260. Maybe some more, I would have to test it first to be sure. All those just add new features (custom cursors and accessing clipboard), they don't modify existing functionality. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.