[Bug 2177305] New: Review Request: civetweb - Embedded C/C++ web server

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177305

Bug ID: 2177305
           Summary: Review Request: civetweb - Embedded C/C++ web server
           Product: Fedora
           Version: rawhide
            Status: NEW
         Component: Package Review
          Assignee: [e-mail]
          Reporter: [e-mail]
        QA Contact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail]
  Target Milestone: ---
    Classification: Fedora

Description of problem:

Civetweb is a dependency for (lib)prometheus-cpp, coming in a following package
review. And (lib)prometheus-cpp is a dependency for Prometheus support in
nfs-ganesha, which is often a component in ceph deployments.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

How reproducible:

Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.

Actual results:

Expected results:

Additional info:

https://kkeithle.fedorapeople.org/civetweb/civetweb-1.15-1.fc39.src.rpm
https://kkeithle.fedorapeople.org/civetweb/civetweb.spec

[Bug 2177305] Review Request: civetweb - Embedded C/C++ web server

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177305

--- Comment #1 from Kaleb KEITHLEY  ---
fedora-review review.txt:

This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are
also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla:
- Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such
  a list, create one.
- Add your own remarks to the template checks.
- Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not
  listed by fedora-review.
- Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this
  case you could also file a bug against fedora-review
- Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines
  in what you paste.
- Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint
  ones are mandatory, though)
- Remove this text

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

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT
     License". 1277 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/kkeithle/review-civetweb/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/f3,
     /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/56, /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/8a
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/debug/.build-id(xen-
     hypervisor, tog-pegasus-libs, TeXmacs, binutils, xen-runtime),
     /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/56(tog-pegasus-libs), /usr/lib/debug/.build-
     id/8a(tog-pegasus-libs)
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: %defattr present but not needed
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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 %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
     Note: Found : Vendor: The civetweb developers
     See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
     guidelines/#_tags_and_sections
[x]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Rpmlint
-------
Checking: civetweb-1.15-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          civetweb-devel-1.15-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          civetweb-debuginfo-1.15-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          civetweb-debugsource-1.15-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          civetweb-1.15-1.fc39.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpmd_y5q88')]
checks: 31, packages: 5

civetweb.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary civetweb
civetweb-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
civetweb.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/lib/debug/.build-id/56/99eccc10340f19235b85c2fdbd38ba489a18fe.debug
../../../../../usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libcivetweb-cpp.so.1.15.0-1.15-1.fc39.x86_64.debug
civetweb.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/lib/debug/.build-id/8a/a3bee7efe8b71a173468c9002764a2df517c8d.debug
../../../../../usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/civetweb-1.15-1.fc39.x86_64.debug
civetweb.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/lib/debug/.build-id/f3/5e85377b919cd17d8fef5348bd46508c4292a8.debug
../../../../../usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libcivetweb.so.1.15.0-1.15-1.fc39.x86_64.debug
 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 0 badness; has taken
1.0 s

Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: civetweb-debuginfo-1.15-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpzpk0z6it')]
checks: 31, packages: 1

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken
0.2 s

Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 4

civetweb.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary civetweb
civetweb-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
civetweb.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/lib/debug/.build-id/56/99eccc10340f19235b85c2fdbd38ba489a18fe.debug
../../../../../usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libcivetweb-cpp.so.1.15.0-1.15-1.fc39.x86_64.debug
civetweb.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/lib/debug/.build-id/8a/a3bee7efe8b71a173468c9002764a2df517c8d.debug
../../../../../usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/civetweb-1.15-1.fc39.x86_64.debug
civetweb.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/lib/debug/.build-id/f3/5e85377b919cd17d8fef5348bd46508c4292a8.debug
../../../../../usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libcivetweb.so.1.15.0-1.15-1.fc39.x86_64.debug
 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 0 badness; has taken
0.9 s

Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/civetweb/civetweb/archive/v1.15/civetweb-1.15.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
90a533422944ab327a4fbb9969f0845d0dba05354f9cacce3a5005fa59f593b9
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
90a533422944ab327a4fbb9969f0845d0dba05354f9cacce3a5005fa59f593b9

Requires
--------
civetweb (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    glibc
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libcivetweb.so.1.15.0()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

civetweb-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    civetweb(x86-64)
    cmake-filesystem(x86-64)
    libcivetweb-cpp.so.1.15.0()(64bit)
    libcivetweb.so.1.15.0()(64bit)

civetweb-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

civetweb-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

Provides
--------
civetweb:
    civetweb
    civetweb(x86-64)
    debuginfo(build-id)
    libcivetweb-cpp.so.1.15.0()(64bit)
    libcivetweb.so.1.15.0()(64bit)

civetweb-devel:
    civetweb-devel
    civetweb-devel(x86-64)
    cmake(civetweb)

civetweb-debuginfo:
    civetweb-debuginfo
    civetweb-debuginfo(x86-64)
    debuginfo(build-id)
    libcivetweb-cpp.so.1.15.0-1.15-1.fc39.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
    libcivetweb.so.1.15.0-1.15-1.fc39.x86_64.debug()(64bit)

civetweb-debugsource:
    civetweb-debugsource
    civetweb-debugsource(x86-64)

Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n civetweb
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Haskell, Python, R, Perl, SugarActivity, PHP, Ocaml, Java,
fonts
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

[Bug 2177305] Review Request: civetweb - Embedded C/C++ web server

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177305

Jakub Kadlčík  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                URL|                            |https://github.com/civetweb

--- Comment #2 from Jakub Kadlčík  ---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5626276
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...

Please take a look if any issues were found.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

[Bug 2177305] Review Request: civetweb - Embedded C/C++ web server

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177305

--- Comment #3 from Kaleb KEITHLEY  ---
(In reply to Jakub Kadlčík from comment #2)
> Copr build:
> https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5626276
> (succeeded)
>
> Review template:
> https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-
> review-2177305-civetweb/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05626276-civetweb/fedora-
> review/review.txt
>
> Please take a look if any issues were found.

LGTM. The

...
[!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[!]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
     Note: Found : Vendor: The civetweb developers
     See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
     guidelines/#_tags_and_sections
...

I had already found in my run of fedora-review
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177305#c1) and fixed in the .spec
in https://kkeithle.fedorapeople.org/civetweb/civetweb.spec, referenced in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177305#c0

and it does build in mock, so...

[Bug 2177305] Review Request: civetweb - Embedded C/C++ web server

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177305

--- Comment #4 from Kaleb KEITHLEY  ---
> I had already found *the Vendor tag* in my run of fedora-review
> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177305#c1) and *it is* fixed in the
> .spec in https://kkeithle.fedorapeople.org/civetweb/civetweb.spec,
> referenced in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177305#c0
>
> and it does build in mock, so...

[Bug 2177305] Review Request: civetweb - Embedded C/C++ web server

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177305

Kaleb KEITHLEY  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|                            |needinfo?(jkadlcik@redhat.c
                   |                            |om)
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #5 from Kaleb KEITHLEY  ---
And I uploaded a new .src.rpm which also reflects the removal of the Vendor:
tag.

[Bug 2177305] Review Request: civetweb - Embedded C/C++ web server

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177305

Jakub Kadlčík  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|needinfo?(jkadlcik@redhat.c |
                   |om)                         |

--- Comment #6 from Jakub Kadlčík  ---
Thank you for the updates Kaleb,
I didn't actually see the spec file, my first comment was done by a bot.

But since I am here, I'll do the review :-)

[Bug 2177305] Review Request: civetweb - Embedded C/C++ web server

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177305

Jakub Kadlčík  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Assignee|[e-mail]    |[e-mail]
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
              Flags|                            |fedora-review?

[Bug 2177305] Review Request: civetweb - Embedded C/C++ web server

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177305

--- Comment #7 from Jakub Kadlčík  ---
Thank you for the package Kaleb,
overall it looks good.
> Url:            https://github.com/civetweb

I'd change the Url to https://github.com/civetweb/civetweb but that's
a minor thing.
> Summary: Civetweb Client Library C and C++ header files
> Group:          Development/Libraries
> Requires:       %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}

Nitpick: Inconsistent indenting
> %defattr(-,root,root,-)

I think this is a default and can be deleted
> %{_includedir}/*
> %{_libdir}/cmake/*

Can you make it more specific, please?
> Group:          Development/Libraries

According to the packaging guidelines, Group tag shouldn't be used anymore
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_section...
> [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
>      Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/8a,
>      /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/56, /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/f3

Can you please take a look at this one?

[Bug 2177305] Review Request: civetweb - Embedded C/C++ web server

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177305

--- Comment #8 from Kaleb KEITHLEY  ---
(In reply to Jakub Kadlčík from comment #7)
> Thank you for the package Kaleb,
> overall it looks good.
> > Url:            https://github.com/civetweb
>
> I'd change the Url to https://github.com/civetweb/civetweb but that's
> a minor thing.
> > Summary: Civetweb Client Library C and C++ header files
> > Group:          Development/Libraries
> > Requires:       %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
>
> Nitpick: Inconsistent indenting
> > %defattr(-,root,root,-)
>
> I think this is a default and can be deleted
> > %{_includedir}/*
> > %{_libdir}/cmake/*
>
> Can you make it more specific, please?
> > Group:          Development/Libraries
>
> According to the packaging guidelines, Group tag shouldn't be used anymore
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_tags_and_section...

All of the above have been addressed in the new src.rpm (and .spec) at 
https://kkeithle.fedorapeople.org/civetweb/civetweb-1.15-1.fc39.src.rpm
> > [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
> >      Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/8a,
> >      /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/56, /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/f3
>
> Can you please take a look at this one?

Those are from the debuginfo build, right? I've never done anything for those
in any of the other packages I've added. E.g. last year I packaged liborc and
libarrow and didn't do anything to exclude debuginfo in those.

If you can tell me what I'm supposed to do I'll do it, otherwise I haven't got
a clue. (No help here
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Debuginfo/ that I can
see.)

[Bug 2177305] Review Request: civetweb - Embedded C/C++ web server

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177305

--- Comment #9 from Jakub Kadlčík  ---
Created attachment 1950308
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1950308&action=edit
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5626276 to 5633423

[Bug 2177305] Review Request: civetweb - Embedded C/C++ web server

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177305

--- Comment #10 from Jakub Kadlčík  ---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5633423
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...

Please take a look if any issues were found.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

[Bug 2177305] Review Request: civetweb - Embedded C/C++ web server

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177305

--- Comment #11 from Kaleb KEITHLEY  ---
(In reply to Jakub Kadlčík from comment #7)
> > [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
> >      Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/8a,
> >      /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/56, /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/f3
>
> Can you please take a look at this one?

The above has been addressed in the new src.rpm (and .spec) at 
https://kkeithle.fedorapeople.org/civetweb/civetweb-1.15-1.fc39.src.rpm

Thanks

[Bug 2177305] Review Request: civetweb - Embedded C/C++ web server

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177305

--- Comment #12 from Jakub Kadlčík  ---
Created attachment 1950323
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1950323&action=edit
The .spec file difference from Copr build 5633423 to 5633551

[Bug 2177305] Review Request: civetweb - Embedded C/C++ web server

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177305

--- Comment #13 from Jakub Kadlčík  ---
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5633551
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...

Please take a look if any issues were found.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

[Bug 2177305] Review Request: civetweb - Embedded C/C++ web server

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177305

--- Comment #14 from Kaleb KEITHLEY  ---
Are you waiting for something from me? I'm happy with it.

[Bug 2177305] Review Request: civetweb - Embedded C/C++ web server

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177305

--- Comment #15 from Jakub Kadlčík  ---
Looks good to me,
thank you Kaleb.

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

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT
     License". 1277 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in
     /home/jkadlcik/git/FedoraReview/2177305-civetweb/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[?]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/cmake/civetweb
[?]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/cmake/civetweb
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 34911 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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 %license.
[x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[-]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[?]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Rpmlint
-------
Checking: civetweb-1.15-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          civetweb-devel-1.15-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          civetweb-debuginfo-1.15-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          civetweb-debugsource-1.15-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
          civetweb-1.15-1.fc39.src.rpm
============================================================================================================
rpmlint session starts
===========================================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp191k5h37')]
checks: 31, packages: 5

civetweb.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary civetweb
civetweb-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
============================================================================= 5
packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken
0.7 s
============================================================================

Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: civetweb-debuginfo-1.15-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
============================================================================================================
rpmlint session starts
===========================================================================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp0ukcqzu1')]
checks: 31, packages: 1

============================================================================= 1
packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken
0.2 s
============================================================================

Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 4

civetweb.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary civetweb
civetweb-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken
1.1 s

Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/civetweb/civetweb/archive/v1.15/civetweb-1.15.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
90a533422944ab327a4fbb9969f0845d0dba05354f9cacce3a5005fa59f593b9
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
90a533422944ab327a4fbb9969f0845d0dba05354f9cacce3a5005fa59f593b9

Requires
--------
civetweb (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    glibc
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libcivetweb.so.1.15.0()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
    libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

civetweb-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    civetweb(x86-64)
    cmake-filesystem(x86-64)
    libcivetweb-cpp.so.1.15.0()(64bit)
    libcivetweb.so.1.15.0()(64bit)

civetweb-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

civetweb-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

Provides
--------
civetweb:
    civetweb
    civetweb(x86-64)
    libcivetweb-cpp.so.1.15.0()(64bit)
    libcivetweb.so.1.15.0()(64bit)

civetweb-devel:
    civetweb-devel
    civetweb-devel(x86-64)
    cmake(civetweb)

civetweb-debuginfo:
    civetweb-debuginfo
    civetweb-debuginfo(x86-64)
    debuginfo(build-id)
    libcivetweb-cpp.so.1.15.0-1.15-1.fc39.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
    libcivetweb.so.1.15.0-1.15-1.fc39.x86_64.debug()(64bit)

civetweb-debugsource:
    civetweb-debugsource
    civetweb-debugsource(x86-64)

Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :try-fedora-review -b 2177305
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++
Disabled plugins: PHP, fonts, Perl, Java, Haskell, Ruby, R, SugarActivity,
Python, Ocaml
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

[Bug 2177305] Review Request: civetweb - Embedded C/C++ web server

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177305

Jakub Kadlčík  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

[Bug 2177305] Review Request: civetweb - Embedded C/C++ web server

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177305

--- Comment #16 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions  ---
The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/civetweb

[Bug 2177305] Review Request: civetweb - Embedded C/C++ web server

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2177305

Kaleb KEITHLEY  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Resolution|---                         |RAWHIDE
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |CLOSED
        Last Closed|                            |2023-04-06 13:44:23