https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=53953
--- Comment #16 from Eric Pouech eric.pouech@gmail.com --- in reply to #14: that's more or less what I did locally to be back on tracks
in reply to #15 my wild guess: looking at https://fedora.pkgs.org/37/fedora-x86_64/freetype-devel-2.12.1-3.fc37.i686.r...
it shows that this package has a dep to say pkgconfig(harfbuzz) but pkgconfig(hardbuff) is provided by *both* the harfbuzz.i686 and harfbuzz.x86_64
if my interpretation is right (didn't look further into the pkgs defs), that means that having one the -devel.i686 or -devel.x86_64 won't force the loading of the other -devel when required by an another package
didn't check how the other distros do it... so c7a97b5d5 by forcing looking (correctly) into the i686 (resp x86_64) packages show all the -devel packages for which the deps haven't been triggered
that would also explain why removing harfbuzz-devel.x86_64 broke the config (right), and it has been installed at first as dep of freetype-devel (as no pkgconfig(harfbuzz) was present at this time)
my understanging: - c7a97b5d5 is correct - fedora has a strange dep here... (I would rather see provides pkgconfig(harfbuzz.i686) rather than pkgconfig(harfbuzz)) - we need to help fedora (and probably other distros) get their config right
hth