Hello,

 - update-desktop-database is not needed for Fedora >= 24. Please remove them.

 - Remove %dir %{_libdir}/%{name}/plugins, it's marked as listed twice.


This is trivial, so the package is bccepted, but please don't forget to fix these before import.


Issues:
=======
- Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
  Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib64/vacuum-im/plugins
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles


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

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: 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: "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright*
     GPL", "MPL (v1.1) GPL (v2 or later) or LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "AFL
     (v2.1) BSD (3 clause)", "zlib/libpng", "BSD (3 clause)", "LGPL
     (v2.1)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "BSD (2
     clause)", "GPL (v2.1) LGPL (v2.1)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)". 2466 files
     have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/bob/packaging/review/vacuum-im/review-vacuum-im/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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]: 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 vacuum-im
[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 20480 bytes in 4 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: 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 vacuum-
     im-data , vacuum-im-devel , vacuum-im-debuginfo , vacuum-im-
     debugsource
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[-]: 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.
[x]: %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]: 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: vacuum-im-1.3.0-0.1.20170415git3f1cd42.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          vacuum-im-data-1.3.0-0.1.20170415git3f1cd42.fc28.noarch.rpm
          vacuum-im-devel-1.3.0-0.1.20170415git3f1cd42.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          vacuum-im-debuginfo-1.3.0-0.1.20170415git3f1cd42.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          vacuum-im-debugsource-1.3.0-0.1.20170415git3f1cd42.fc28.x86_64.rpm
          vacuum-im-1.3.0-0.1.20170415git3f1cd42.fc28.src.rpm
vacuum-im.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US modularity -> molecularity
vacuum-im.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary vacuum-im
vacuum-im-data.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) translatons -> translations, translators, translator
vacuum-im-data.noarch: W: no-documentation
vacuum-im-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
vacuum-im-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
vacuum-im-debugsource.x86_64: W: no-documentation
vacuum-im.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US modularity -> molecularity
6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.

Thanks for reviewing this ticket.
Can you please reviewing the depending package qxtglobalshortcut.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1504591

Spec URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/vacuum-im.spec
SRPM URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/vacuum-im-1.3.0-0.2.20171028git6b614da.fc26.src.rpm

%changelog
* Sun Oct 29 2017 Martin Gansser <martinkg> - 1.3.0-0.2.20171028git6b614da
- Update to 1.3.0-0.2.20171028git6b614da
- Do not run update-desktop-database on Fedora 25+ as per packaging guidelines
- Remove %%dir %%{_libdir}/%%{name}/plugins, it's marked as listed twice

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

package has been built successfully on f25, f26, f27 and rawhide.

You should add the summary text also into descriptions to let users know what this package includes.

A standard constructive criticism of mine too: I don't think it helps anything to mention "written in Qt" in package summaries (*maybe* additions to %description field)

is this ok ?

vacuum-im.spec

Summary:        XMPP/Jabber client

...

%description
Full-featured cross platform Jabber/XMPP client.
The core program is just a plugin loader - all functionality is made
available via plugins. This enforces modularity and ensures well defined
component interaction via interfaces.


or should i add the main features to description also ?

Main Features
-------------
  * Nested roster groups
  * Multiple accounts in profile
  * Support for Adium message styles
  * Full support for Jabber conferences
  * Easy access to recent contacts and conferences
  * Ability to combine contact to meta-contact from several accounts
  * Storage of history both locally and on the server (XEP-136)
  * Create a bookmark at the conference with the possibility autologin
  * Support for CAPTCHA forms, with the possibility of transmission without the use of browser
  * Automated change of transport with preservation of names, groups, subscriptions and archive messages
  * Lists of privacy, with the possibility of ignoring or setting in invisible mode for individual contacts and groups
  * Multi-stage automatic change of status depending on the time of inactivity
  * Ability to set different status icons for individual contacts, and groups of contacts are connected through transport
  * Support for avatars with the ability to specify a contact an arbitrary image as an avatar
  * Ability to add annotation to contact

I think the summary adjustment alone is sufficient to satisfy me... Listing all features in %description seems too much (and would change over time, you want this to stay fairly consistent)