Build succeeded.
https://fedora.softwarefactory-project.io/zuul/buildset/8988dcbca67a406ba524dbb33ff85522

• check-for-arches : SUCCESS in 1m 48s
• check-for-eln : SUCCESS in 20s
• eln-rpm-scratch-build : SUCCESS in 10m 12s
• rpm-scratch-build : SUCCESS in 11m 42s
• rpm-scratch-build-s390x : SUCCESS in 13m 40s (non-voting)
• rpm-scratch-build-ppc64le : SUCCESS in 15m 41s (non-voting)
• rpm-scratch-build-i686 : SUCCESS in 12m 57s (non-voting)
• rpm-scratch-build-aarch64 : SUCCESS in 11m 20s (non-voting)
• rpm-linter : FAILURE in 9m 37s (non-voting)
• rpm-rpminspect : FAILURE in 6m 44s (non-voting)
• check-for-sti-tests : SUCCESS in 16s
• check-for-fmf-tests : SUCCESS in 21s
• rpm-install-test : SUCCESS in 4m 31s
• rpm-sti-test : SUCCESS in 8m 28s
  Skipped 1 job

I'm not a fan. If we start doing that, then we'll have to update all our sysusers config files to match. I think this should be discussed at the packaging committee level: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee

FWIW, the package guidelines already use /sbin/nologin in the sysusers example.

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

Of course being in the example is not the same thing as a SHOULD/MUST requirement to use that shell. If guidance on that is desired, please file a Packaging Committee issue (or even better, a PR to the guidelines with the desired wording) and we'll discuss it at a future meeting.