Jason Tibbits response to my post pointed me in the right direction.  Here's my reply to him, which I neglected to copy to the list.  The problem was not in the coding of spec file but rather in how fedora-review determines which spec file to use. 


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [Fedora-packaging] directory ownership problem
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 15:46:39 -0400
From: Sanford Rockowitz <rockowitz@minsoft.com>
Organization: Minaret Software
To: Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs@math.uh.edu>


Thanks for the swift reply.   Your request for the a link to the SRPM 
pointed me in the right direction.  Even though the -n option to 
fedora-review specifies the name of the spec file in the current 
directory, fedora-review was using a slate spec file in the input 
srpm.   So it seems to be a workflow issue, not a spec file syntax issue.


On 07/12/2017 01:58 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>>>>> "SR" == Sanford Rockowitz <rockowitz@minsoft.com> writes:
> SR> I hope this list is appropriate for asking a question regarding rpm
> SR> file ownership. As a relative rpm newbie, I suspect I'm missing some
> SR> piece of "secret sauce" that's just obvious to anyone with rpm
> SR> experience. If there's a more appropriate place to post the
> SR> question, I'd appreciate a pointer.  Thanks in advance.
> It's always a good idea to provide a link to your SRPM.  Without it, all
> I can say is that what you're doing _should_ work but that I'd have to
> see the whole thing and build it myself to see exactly what's happening.
>   - J<