I think it is time to reassess where dlopened objects should be.
In my opinion the best thing is to have them in a %_libdir subdir
and to change the default config file accordingly.

The issue of retro compatibility is important too, so I think that 
for a given number of fedora releases there could be symlinks pointing 
from the old location to the new location, and a README.fedora 
file could be added stating that in a given number of versions the 
dlopened objects will be removed from %_libdir.

I'll try to review it.

Ok, finally found free time to review it. 

BTW, Tom, are you planning to update (at least devel branch) to 2.2.14?

I would like to push 2.2.14 into rawhide, but the immediate problem is that upstream decided to remove the "text" driver, which leaves us with a functionality gap.  I haven't decided whether it's worth trying to get that driver packaged separately or not.  I have gotten bugs indicating that people have used it in the past ...

Ok, since 2.2.14. is in Rawhide - here is my review request:

- rpmlint  is not silent:

http://peter.fedorapeople.org/stuff/unixodbc_rpmlint.log

We may ignore messages, regarding non-versioned so-files in %{_libdir} and zero-length /etc/odbc.ini, however other messages needs fixing. 

* You must convert ChangeLof from iso8859-1 in %prep
* You must remove executable permisson from files, mentioned my rpmlint.

+/- The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. Unfortunately (perhaps, due to historical reasons) GUI module for unixODBC is named as unixODBC-kde, although it has almost nothing to do with KDE (purely Qt-based - the only link between them is DataManager(II) applications, used by KDE afaik). To be honest, I'd like this package to be renamed to something like unixODBC-gui, but the unixODBC package has very long history and even this small change may be relatively painless.

+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English. Although I'm not a native english speaker and, therefore, this requirement of Fedora Review Giiudelines always confusing me :).
+ The spec file for the package is be legible.
+ The sources used to build the package are matching the upstream source:

[petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ md5sum unixODBC-2.2.14.tar.gz*
f47c2efb28618ecf5f33319140a7acd0  unixODBC-2.2.14.tar.gz
f47c2efb28618ecf5f33319140a7acd0  unixODBC-2.2.14.tar.gz_from_srpm
[petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture.

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1311282

+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
+ Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, calling ldconfig in %post and %postun.
+ A package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list any file more than once in the spec file's %files listings.
+/- Permissions on files must be set properly, except those, noted above (easyfix).
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissable content.
+ The package does not contain etremely large chunks of documentation.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application.
+ C header files are in a -devel package.
+ No static libraries.
+ The package does not contains pkgconfig(.pc) files.
+ The devel sub-package requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.

- The sub-package containing GUI applications does include a %{name}.desktop file. Unfortunately, it does NOT properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section.

+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). 
+ All filenames in the package must be valid UTF-8.


So, please, 

* use proper installation procedure of desktop-files ( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop )
* Suppress rpmlint messages

All changes merged into F-11 and devel branches, so I think we may close this ticket.

Koji scratch build

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1401209