Bug 1146181

*** Bug 1217212 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

I shall take this for a review.

No blockers, just a few questions/suggestions.

- rpmlint on both source and binary rpms looks good.
- Great idea of providing a sample config odbc.ini.sample!

- Any special reason to require files (%{_bindir}/iconv, %{_bindir}/odbcinst}) rather than packages (glibc-common, unixODBC, respectively)?
- Ad "correct EOL" in %prep: wouldn't dos2unix do the work more easily?
- Ad checking executable odbcinst in %post and %preun is not required, since there is a dependency to %{_bindir}/odbcinst, right? (And thus "true" at the end of %post and %preun is not necessary, too.)
- The upstream src rpm comes with quite old libtool; shouldn't we consider using the one from the distribution? That would require setting a new build-time dependency and patching Makefile.

Anyway, good job!

Jan, many thanks for taking this review.

(In reply to Jan Holcapek from comment #3)
> No blockers, just a few questions/suggestions.
> 
> - rpmlint on both source and binary rpms looks good.
> - Great idea of providing a sample config odbc.ini.sample!
> 
> - Any special reason to require files (%{_bindir}/iconv,
> %{_bindir}/odbcinst}) rather than packages (glibc-common, unixODBC,
> respectively)?
This way I don't need to care which particular package contain this file.

> - Ad "correct EOL" in %prep: wouldn't dos2unix do the work more easily?
It's based on the [1], which states that "...using dos2unix is not necessary".


> - Ad checking executable odbcinst in %post and %preun is not required, since
> there is a dependency to %{_bindir}/odbcinst, right? (And thus "true" at the
> end of %post and %preun is not necessary, too.)
Dependency in the spec don't protect us from situation where the 'odbcinst' got removed (intentionally or accidentaly) from the filesystem. As a result it might cause problems when you would like to reinstall this package.

> - The upstream src rpm comes with quite old libtool; shouldn't we consider
> using the one from the distribution? That would require setting a new
> build-time dependency and patching Makefile.
We might consider to report it upstream. I would prefer not to patch it until it would be really necessary. 

> 
> Anyway, good job!

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding

ping?

Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/sqliteodbc

sqliteodbc-0.9994-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-1a3d3d42db

sqliteodbc-0.9994-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-f984bcea09

sqliteodbc-0.9994-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-1a3d3d42db

sqliteodbc-0.9994-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-f984bcea09

sqliteodbc-0.9994-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

sqliteodbc-0.9994-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.