Hello,


 - You need to validate the desktop file you install:

BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils

%check
desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/applications/%{name}
.desktop


 - You install hi-colors icons so you need to run gtk-update-icon-cache See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ScriptletSnippets#GTK.2B_icon_cache

Requires:       hicolor-icon-theme

%post
/sbin/ldconfig
touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || :
if [ -x %{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache ] ; then
%{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache --quiet %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || :
fi

%postun
/sbin/ldconfig
touch --no-create %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || :
if [ -x %{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache ] ; then
%{_bindir}/gtk-update-icon-cache --quiet %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor || :
fi

 - Please use pkgconfig where you can:

BuildRequires:  pkgconfig(gnome-desktop-3.0)
BuildRequires:  pkgconfig(granite)
BuildRequires:  vala
BuildRequires:  vala-tools
BuildRequires:  pkgconfig(libbamf3)
BuildRequires:  pkgconfig(clutter-gtk-1.0)
BuildRequires:  pkgconfig(libdeepin-mutter)
BuildRequires:  pkgconfig(upower-glib)
BuildRequires:  pkgconfig(gee-0.8)
BuildRequires:  pkgconfig(gudev-1.0)
BuildRequires:  pkgconfig(libwnck-3.0)
BuildRequires:  pkgconfig(libcanberra)
BuildRequires:  pkgconfig(xkbcommon-x11)
BuildRequires:  pkgconfig(xkbfile)

 - I'm missing deepin-mutter. Could you propose this package for a Review?

I've found deepin-mutter bug #1476573

Fixed, Thanks.

https://github.com/FZUG/repo/commit/174b55d3238633418877f700ec6261161f77a8e4

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=22368186

Package is ready. Could you review it? @zebob

Hello mosquito,

 - Your package must own /usr/include/deepin-wm

%files devel
%dir %{_includedir}/%{name}

Package is fine otherwise, it is accepted, just fix this before import.

ALSO I sent you a mail regarding a bug in package golang-github-sergi-go-diff 
See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1480966#c7 Could you fix this and update the package in Rawhide and F27? I need it for another package and this is blocking me.




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

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


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

C/C++:
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: Package contains no static executables.
[ ]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

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: "*No copyright* GPL (v3 or later)", "FSF All Permissive", "GPL
     (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 155 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review
     /deepin-wm/review-deepin-wm/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/include/deepin-wm
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/deepin-wm,
     /usr/share/vala/vapi, /usr/share/vala
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[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]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
     contains icons.
     Note: icons in deepin-wm
[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 10240 bytes in 1 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
     desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in deepin-
     wm-debuginfo , deepin-wm-debugsource
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[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]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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: deepin-wm-1.9.16-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          deepin-wm-devel-1.9.16-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          deepin-wm-debuginfo-1.9.16-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          deepin-wm-debugsource-1.9.16-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          deepin-wm-1.9.16-1.fc28.src.rpm
deepin-wm.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libcanberra-gtk3
deepin-wm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary deepin-wm
deepin-wm.x86_64: E: invalid-desktopfile /usr/share/applications/deepin-wm-multitaskingview.desktop value "Deepin;" for key "OnlyShowIn" in group "Desktop Entry" contains an unregistered value "Deepin"; values extending the format should start with "X-"
deepin-wm.x86_64: W: desktopfile-without-binary /usr/share/applications/deepin-wm-multitaskingview.desktop dbus-send
deepin-wm.x86_64: W: desktopfile-without-binary /usr/share/applications/deepin-wm-wayland.desktop gala
deepin-wm-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
deepin-wm-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
deepin-wm-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 warnings.

Thank you for reminding me. I fix golang-github-sergi-go-diff package provide for Rawhide and F27.

Bodhi:  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-27e921ccc5
Please add a ticket (karma) to make it faster.


The directory owners of deepin-wm have also been fixed.
https://github.com/FZUG/repo/commit/33f7f69909af0c7086218e850601e1e7be225254

(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/deepin-wm

This is already in Rawhide. Closing on behalf of the Deepin Desktop packaging effort.