Bug 2512731

Summary:

Review Request: civetweb - Embedded C/C++ web server

Product:

[Fedora] Fedora

Reporter:

Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert>

Component:

Package Review

Assignee:

Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody>

Status:

CLOSED ERRATA

QA Contact:

Jerry James <loganjerry>

Severity:

medium

Docs Contact:

Priority:

medium

Version:

rawhide

CC:

loganjerry, package-review

Target Milestone:

---

Flags:

loganjerry: fedora-review+

Target Release:

---

Hardware:

All

OS:

Linux

URL:

https://github.com/civetweb/civetweb

Whiteboard:

Fixed In Version:

Doc Type:

---

Doc Text:

Story Points:

---

Clone Of:

Environment:

Last Closed:

2026-09-03 00:26:09 UTC

Type:

---

Regression:

---

Mount Type:

---

Documentation:

---

CRM:

Verified Versions:

Category:

---

oVirt Team:

---

RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:

Cloudforms Team:

---

Target Upstream Version:

Embargoed:

Attachments:

Description	Flags
The .spec file difference from Copr build 10838783 to 10886209	none

Description Mattias Ellert 2026-08-08 07:11:55 UTC

Spec URL: https://www.ellert.se/review/civetweb.spec
SRPM URL: https://www.ellert.se/review/civetweb-1.16-15.fc44.src.rpm
Description:

Civetweb is an easy to use, powerful, C (C/C++) embeddable web server
with optional CGI, SSL and Lua support.

CivetWeb can be used by developers as a library, to add web server
functionality to an existing application. It can also be used by end
users as a stand-alone web server running on a Windows or Linux PC.
It is available as single executable, no installation is required.

Fedora Account System Username: ellert

Note that this is a re-review request to unretire the package in rawhide.
The submittet package is identical to the current package in Fedora 44.

Comment 1 Fedora Review Service 2026-08-08 20:16:12 UTC

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10838783
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2512731-civetweb/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10838783-civetweb/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/civetweb
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names

Please know that there can be false-positives.

---
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.

Comment 2 Mattias Ellert 2026-08-08 23:20:24 UTC

(In reply to Fedora Review Service from comment #1)
> Found issues:
> 
> - A package with this name already exists. Please check
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/civetweb

As stated in the request:
> Note that this is a re-review request to unretire the package in rawhide.

I.e. it is expected that the package exists. It is a re-review of the existing package.

Comment 3 Kaleb KEITHLEY 2026-08-10 12:16:37 UTC

I have added you as an admin to civetweb

Comment 4 Jerry James 2026-08-20 01:21:13 UTC

I will take this review.

Comment 5 Jerry James 2026-08-20 02:15:32 UTC

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

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

Issues:
=======
- From the build log:
  -- Compile for OpenSSL 1.0 API - OFF
  -- Compile for OpenSSL 1.1 API - ON
  -- Compile for OpenSSL 3.0 API - OFF

  Shouldn't we compile for the OpenSSL 3.0 API?

- Also from the build log:
  -- Dynamically load SSL libraries - ON
  -- SSL Library Name - libssl.so

  For an RPM build, wouldn't it be better to directly link against OpenSSL?

- This line in %files for the devel subpackage:
  %{_libdir}/cmake/civetweb/*

  should instead be:
  %{_libdir}/cmake/civetweb/

  to own the directory.

- Is there any possibility of doing something in a %check section, even just a
  minimal "does it run?" check?

===== 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". 1286 files have unknown license.
[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

     See Issues above.

[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/cmake/civetweb

     See Issues above.

[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries
     with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible.
[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.
[-]: 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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 37016 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 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.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.

     No links or comments on the patches.

[-]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[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-1.16-15.fc46.x86_64.rpm
          civetweb-devel-1.16-15.fc46.x86_64.rpm
          civetweb-1.16-15.fc46.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmpwq156dk6')]
checks: 32, packages: 3

civetweb.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary civetweb
civetweb-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
civetweb.spec: W: no-%check-section
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 31 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: civetweb-debuginfo-1.16-15.fc46.x86_64.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmpyurbamuh')]
checks: 32, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 14 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s 





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.10.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.15/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 33, packages: 3

civetweb.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary civetweb
civetweb-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 42 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.1 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/civetweb/civetweb/archive/v1.16/civetweb-1.16.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : f0e471c1bf4e7804a6cfb41ea9d13e7d623b2bcc7bc1e2a4dd54951a24d60285
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f0e471c1bf4e7804a6cfb41ea9d13e7d623b2bcc7bc1e2a4dd54951a24d60285


Requires
--------
civetweb (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    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)
    libz.so.1()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

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



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)
    pkgconfig(civetweb)
    pkgconfig(civetweb-cpp)



Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2512731 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++
Disabled plugins: R, fonts, Ocaml, Java, Perl, Haskell, Ruby, Python, PHP, SugarActivity
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comment 6 Mattias Ellert 2026-08-20 20:34:22 UTC

Spec URL: https://www.ellert.se/review/civetweb.spec
SRPM URL: https://www.ellert.se/review/civetweb-1.16-16.fc46.src.rpm
Description:

Civetweb is an easy to use, powerful, C (C/C++) embeddable web server
with optional CGI, SSL and Lua support.

CivetWeb can be used by developers as a library, to add web server
functionality to an existing application. It can also be used by end
users as a stand-alone web server running on a Windows or Linux PC.
It is available as single executable, no installation is required.

Fedora Account System Username: ellert

Changelog entry for this version

* Thu Aug 20 2026 Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert.se> - 1.16-16
- Link to openssl libraries instead of using runtime dynamic loading
- Use openssl 3.0 API instead of the default openssl 1.1 API
- Let the devel package own the cmake subdirectory
- Run tests in check

The patches have been referenced with either an upstream git commit ID or an upstream pull requests.

Comment 7 Fedora Review Service 2026-08-20 20:48:05 UTC

Created attachment 2155179 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 10838783 to 10886209

Comment 8 Fedora Review Service 2026-08-20 20:48:07 UTC

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10886209
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2512731-civetweb/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10886209-civetweb/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/civetweb
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names

Please know that there can be false-positives.

---
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.

Comment 9 Jerry James 2026-08-24 14:13:44 UTC

That looks great.  This package is APPROVED.

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2026-08-25 03:39:19 UTC

FEDORA-EPEL-2026-4a6dda9677 (civetweb-1.16-12.el8) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2026-4a6dda9677

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2026-08-25 03:39:22 UTC

FEDORA-EPEL-2026-fdfd1e7a40 (civetweb-1.16-16.el9) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2026-fdfd1e7a40

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2026-08-25 03:40:56 UTC

FEDORA-EPEL-2026-f708652da1 (civetweb-1.16-16.el10_2) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.2.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2026-f708652da1

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2026-08-25 03:40:57 UTC

FEDORA-2026-6b3828a9db (civetweb-1.16-16.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-6b3828a9db

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2026-08-25 03:40:57 UTC

FEDORA-EPEL-2026-6713aa601e (civetweb-1.16-16.el10_4) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.4.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2026-6713aa601e

Comment 15 Fedora Update System 2026-08-25 03:40:58 UTC

FEDORA-EPEL-2026-f039b470d3 (civetweb-1.16-16.el10_3) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.3.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2026-f039b470d3

Comment 16 Fedora Update System 2026-08-26 00:59:40 UTC

FEDORA-EPEL-2026-f039b470d3 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.3 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2026-f039b470d3

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 17 Fedora Update System 2026-08-26 01:10:48 UTC

FEDORA-EPEL-2026-f708652da1 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.2 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2026-f708652da1

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 18 Fedora Update System 2026-08-26 01:26:14 UTC

FEDORA-EPEL-2026-6713aa601e has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.4 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2026-6713aa601e

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 19 Fedora Update System 2026-08-26 01:41:45 UTC

FEDORA-2026-8522ee1f75 has been pushed to the Fedora 43 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2026-8522ee1f75`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-8522ee1f75

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 20 Fedora Update System 2026-08-26 01:55:47 UTC

FEDORA-EPEL-2026-4a6dda9677 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2026-4a6dda9677

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 21 Fedora Update System 2026-08-26 02:01:36 UTC

FEDORA-2026-6b3828a9db has been pushed to the Fedora 44 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2026-6b3828a9db`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-6b3828a9db

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 22 Fedora Update System 2026-08-26 02:05:36 UTC

FEDORA-EPEL-2026-fdfd1e7a40 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2026-fdfd1e7a40

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 23 Fedora Update System 2026-09-03 00:26:09 UTC

FEDORA-EPEL-2026-f039b470d3 (civetweb-1.16-16.el10_3) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.3 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 24 Fedora Update System 2026-09-03 00:29:02 UTC

FEDORA-EPEL-2026-f708652da1 (civetweb-1.16-16.el10_2) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.2 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 25 Fedora Update System 2026-09-03 00:43:39 UTC

FEDORA-EPEL-2026-6713aa601e (civetweb-1.16-16.el10_4) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.4 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 26 Fedora Update System 2026-09-03 00:58:01 UTC

FEDORA-2026-8522ee1f75 (civetweb-1.16-16.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 27 Fedora Update System 2026-09-03 01:21:57 UTC

FEDORA-2026-6b3828a9db (civetweb-1.16-16.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 28 Fedora Update System 2026-09-03 01:48:17 UTC

FEDORA-EPEL-2026-4a6dda9677 (civetweb-1.16-12.el8) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 29 Fedora Update System 2026-09-03 02:00:56 UTC

FEDORA-EPEL-2026-fdfd1e7a40 (civetweb-1.16-16.el9) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.