Package Review
==============

Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated



==== C/C++ ====
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.


==== Generic ====
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
     least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
     Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
     license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
     license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.

[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
(note by mpreisle: not in changelog and comments but that is permissible IMO)

[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.

[-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
(justification by mpreisle: Headers only, debuginfo doesn't make any sense)

[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present
     Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: SHOULD Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
     Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
     separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
     include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
     /usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
     --requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[!]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
     upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[!]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[!]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.

Rpmlint
-------
Checking: glm-devel-0.9.3.2-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm
          glm-doc-0.9.3.2-1.fc16.noarch.rpm
          glm-0.9.3.2-1.fc16.src.rpm
glm-devel.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/include/glm/gtx/ocl_type.inl
glm-devel.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/include/glm/gtx/vec1.inl
glm-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) devel -> delve, devil, revel
glm-doc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US devel -> delve, devil, revel
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings.


Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint glm-doc
glm-doc.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'

Requires
--------
glm-devel-0.9.3.2-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):


glm-doc-0.9.3.2-1.fc16.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):


Provides
--------
glm-devel-0.9.3.2-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm:

    glm-devel = 0.9.3.2-1.fc16
    glm-devel(x86-64) = 0.9.3.2-1.fc16
    glm-static = 0.9.3.2-1.fc16

glm-doc-0.9.3.2-1.fc16.noarch.rpm:

    glm-doc = 0.9.3.2-1.fc16

MD5-sum check
-------------
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/ogl-math/glm-0.9.3.2/glm-0.9.3.2.zip :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : ee66ab8336b9b6b3dff69268c497688268cf5a9d2b3a14e1aa6fbd7f48c911be
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ee66ab8336b9b6b3dff69268c497688268cf5a9d2b3a14e1aa6fbd7f48c911be


Generated by fedora-review 0.2.2 (9f8c0e5) last change: 2012-08-09
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 787510
External plugins: