My query script thinks that ipmiutil has a script or trigger that directly enables a systemd unit using 'systemctl enable'. It probably should not. Please update this packages to use the macroized scriptlet (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Systemd). If your package has an exception from FESCo permitting it to enable itself, please make sure that the service in question is listed in the appropriate preset file. There is a general exception described here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Starting_services_by_default If your package falls under the general exception, then it is possible that no change is required. Nevertheless, if you are relying on the exception, please make sure that your rpm scripts are sensible. The exception is: In addition, any service which does not remain persistent on the system (aka, it "runs once then goes away"), does not listen to incoming connections during initialization, and does not require configuration to be functional may be enabled by default (but is not required to do so). An example of "runs once then goes away" service is iptables. Given that this issue can affect Fedora 20 users who install your package as a dependency, this bug should be fixed in Fedora 20 and Rawhide.
I'm confused that the query detected this as not already implemented. In the upstream and rawhide ipmiutil.spec, it shows: %if 0%{?fedora} >= 18 %systemd_post ipmiutil_evt.service %systemd_post ipmiutil_asy.service %systemd_post ipmiutil_wdt.service %systemd_post ipmi_port.service %endif ... %if 0%{?fedora} >= 18 %systemd_preun ipmiutil_evt.service %systemd_preun ipmiutil_asy.service %systemd_preun ipmiutil_wdt.service %systemd_preun ipmi_port.service %else ... %if 0%{?fedora} >= 18 %systemd_postun_with_restart ipmi_port.service %else See http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/ipmiutil.git/tree/ipmiutil.spec?id=39f162e361586ed45ab497c5ac38f67047121f69 What exactly is not in compliance?
Sorry, script bug on my part. I caught this: # systemctl enable ipmi_port.service >/dev/null 2>&1 || : because my comment-detecting regex was wrong.