I've got a spec file that generates what seems to be false positives on three directory paths. My Fedora package reviewer and I were not able to figure out exactly why the directory ownership is a problem, but I have a conjecture:

The spec file contains sub-packages that have inter-dependencies. In particular, there is a package called python2-pulp-common that does own three of the directories that fedora-review is upset about and some other packages that depend on python2-pulp-common will install subfolder and/or files in those folders. Could it be that fedora-review only considers packages that are currently in Rawhide when evaluating the ownership of folders for the dependent packages, and that is where the errors are coming from?
</conjecture>

I will attach the spec file in question (unfortunately it is very long). Here is the output from fedora-review that is eyebrow raising:

{{{
40 [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
41 Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/pulp, /etc/gofer/plugins,
42 /etc/pki/pulp, /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pulp
}}}

Note: The /etc/gofer/plugins folder is actually a bug with the gofer package and that package owner is fixing that for me. However, dnf believes that the other three are correctly owned by the package I expect:

{{{
$ sudo dnf provides /etc/pulp
Last metadata expiration check performed 1:55:01 ago on Tue Jan 12 14:25:40 2016.
python2-pulp-common-2.8.0-0.1.beta.1.fc24.noarch : Pulp common python packages
Repo : @System

[rbarlow@boole pulp]$ sudo dnf provides /etc/pki/pulp
Last metadata expiration check performed 1:55:14 ago on Tue Jan 12 14:25:40 2016.
python2-pulp-common-2.8.0-0.1.beta.1.fc24.noarch : Pulp common python packages
Repo : @System

[rbarlow@boole pulp]$ sudo dnf provides /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/pulp
Last metadata expiration check performed 1:55:23 ago on Tue Jan 12 14:25:40 2016.
python2-pulp-common-2.8.0-0.1.beta.1.fc24.noarch : Pulp common python packages
Repo : @System
}}}