Note: This is a beta release of Red Hat Bugzilla 5.0. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Also email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback here.

Bug 77858

Summary: Bad pkgconfig path for XFree86-devel
Product: [Retired] Red Hat Raw Hide Reporter: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot>
Component: XFree86Assignee: Mike A. Harris <mharris>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE QA Contact: David Lawrence <dkl>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 1.0   
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2002-11-15 01:57:52 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Description Nicolas Mailhot 2002-11-14 14:37:50 UTC
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; fr-FR; rv:1.2b) Gecko/20021114

Description of problem:
XFree86-devel install its pkgconfig files in /usr/X11R6/lib/pkgconfig/, which is
not the default pkgconfig directory.

This confuses the system and hampers for example xft mozilla build, since it
needs xft.pc and does not find it in pkgconfig normal directory.

(and what's the point anyway of /usr/X11R6/lib/pkgconfig, it only contains two
files on my system)

So either pkgconfig should be fixed to also look in this dir or the pc files
should be installed in normal directory

(btw red mouse cursors are very outlandish ; is there a way to select gold ones
instead (or even in the relevant gnome2 dialog) ?)

Comment 1 Mike A. Harris 2002-11-15 01:57:45 UTC
The pkgconfig stuff is currently in the location that XFree86 installs
it when building.  This is a known issue, and will be fixed soon.



Comment 2 Mike A. Harris 2002-11-15 01:58:37 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 77815 ***