Some small issues with the spec file: - The build requires yacc, so a BuildRequires: byacc would be appropriate - The package provides libodbc.so, but rpm -q --provides doesn't list it (only libodbc.so.1)
Thanks for report --- will fix at next turn of the package.
Also have unixODBC provide libodbcinst.so as well as packaging it in the main package so the -devel package doesn't need to be brough in for things like java-1.5.0-sun-jdbc
After looking at this again I am wondering why you think you need --provides data for the .so symlinks. I don't know of any way that an automatic dependency would be generated on the symlinks: explicitly linking the libraries into your app would generate a dependency on the versioned names, while dlopen() wouldn't result in any dependency at all. Are you intending to do a manual "Requires: libodbc.so" in your package specfile? If so, why not just "Requires: unixODBC" instead?
These are binary packages of the Java JRE built from the jpackage java-1.5.0-sun nosrc.rpm. Which require libodbc.so. 3rd party binary apps would also "require" libodbc.so if they do not do libodbc.so if they built their system using a different commercial odbc driver interface which unixODBC would be supplimenting. I do not see an "issue" with providing the libodbc.so symlink in the main package as I know many commercial applications that use ODBC will load up libodbc.so by default instead of looking for libodbc.so.1 and several do not provide an option.
Based on the date this bug was created, it appears to have been reported against rawhide during the development of a Fedora release that is no longer maintained. In order to refocus our efforts as a project we are flagging all of the open bugs for releases which are no longer maintained. If this bug remains in NEEDINFO thirty (30) days from now, we will automatically close it. If you can reproduce this bug in a maintained Fedora version (7, 8, or rawhide), please change this bug to the respective version and change the status to ASSIGNED. (If you're unable to change the bug's version or status, add a comment to the bug and someone will change it for you.) Thanks for your help, and we apologize again that we haven't handled these issues to this point. The process we're following is outlined here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/F9CleanUp We will be following the process here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping to ensure this doesn't happen again.
This bug has been in NEEDINFO for more than 30 days since feedback was first requested. As a result we are closing it. If you can reproduce this bug in the future against a maintained Fedora version please feel free to reopen it against that version. The process we're following is outlined here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/F9CleanUp