Bug 2428750 - Review Request: shell-timeout - scripts for setting shell timeout automatically
Summary: Review Request: shell-timeout - scripts for setting shell timeout automatically
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Carl George 🀠
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL: https://github.com/fermitools/shell-t...
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2026-01-12 19:47 UTC by Pat Riehecky
Modified: 2026-04-11 01:59 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version: shell-timeout-0.2.0-1.fc45
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2026-04-11 01:59:04 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
carl: fedora-review+
fedora-admin-xmlrpc: mirror+


Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Issue Tracker FC-3271 0 None None None 2026-03-03 18:26:10 UTC

Description Pat Riehecky 2026-01-12 19:47:58 UTC
Spec URL: https://github.com/fermitools/shell-timeout/blob/main/shell-timeout.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jcpunk/shell-timeout/fedora-rawhide-aarch64/10015249-shell-timeout/shell-timeout-0.1.0-1.fc44.src.rpm
Description: These scripts automatically set shell timeout values based on user ID (UID) or group ID (GID) membership in POSIX shells (bash/zsh) and C shells (csh/tcsh).
Fedora Account System Username: jcpunk

Comment 1 Fedora Review Service 2026-01-12 19:50:45 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10001913
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2428750-shell-timeout/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10001913-shell-timeout/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/shell-timeout/diff.txt
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/

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 Pat Riehecky 2026-01-12 19:54:00 UTC
I'm both "upstream" and the rpm packager here.  Unless I'm looking at the wrong thing the source looks identical to me...

Comment 3 Miroslav SuchΓ½ 2026-01-15 08:23:52 UTC
The content **and** checksum have to match.

Comment 4 Pat Riehecky 2026-01-15 14:28:24 UTC
In theory I've updated the copr build to use the correct sha sum

Comment 5 Pat Riehecky 2026-03-03 18:21:19 UTC
Current copr build : https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jcpunk/shell-timeout/build/10187767/

Comment 6 Carl George 🎩 2026-03-04 03:03:20 UTC
The release field should use %autorelease, and the changelog should
be generated by %autochangelog.

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_release_tag
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#changelogs

================================================================================

It's not required, but the recommended source URL format for a GitHub tag should be:

Source:  %{url}/archive/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

This will let you avoid the URL fragment workaround.

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_git_tags

================================================================================

Macro forms of system executables should not be used, so the instances of %{__install} should be replaced with just the install command.


https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_macros

================================================================================

Is it intentional that the same conf/shell-timeout file is in /etc/default and /usr/share/doc/shell-timeout?  I'm not aware of any guidelines around this, it just struck me as odd so I wanted to check.

Comment 7 Pat Riehecky 2026-03-04 15:14:45 UTC
In theory this is updated at:https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jcpunk/shell-timeout/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10190563-shell-timeout/

Diff : https://github.com/fermitools/shell-timeout/commit/7475895caa6f6f831d53596494d0532bbf720803

I get torn on the default config in %doc.  On the one hand, it is nice to have an unmodified config easy to diff against on the system. On the other, that is really a sysadmin problem rather than a packager one.  I've removed it.  These days it is easy enough to pull down a fresh private copy to compare against.

I didn't find clear guidance on if you make your empty drop-in directories by default, but, playing around with it in various ansible/puppet, having it there does simplify the config management.  The rpm doesn't own the content of the directory, just the existence of it.

Comment 8 Carl George 🎩 2026-03-04 20:03:27 UTC
Those changes look good.  There is one other small thing I noticed, which is the install commands should use the -p flag to preserve timestamps.  That's a small enough thing we don't need to block the review for it, you can just fix it on import.  The rest of the spec file looks good, so this package is APPROVED.


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

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

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

Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
     Note: Using prebuilt packages
[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.
[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.
[-]: 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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 8291 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: 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]: 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]: 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 all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Comment 9 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2026-03-05 14:26:24 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/shell-timeout

Comment 10 Carl George 🀠 2026-04-11 01:59:04 UTC
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-c68f04e358


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.