This would seem to be a different change.

This also seems a change unrelated to directory ownership.

Yes, those two are the "Also, minor typo and formatting fixes." part, a separate commit. They can be dropped if combining that kind of changes with the real content is not desired.

The list and this paragraph are a bit confusing, I think because the "a required package owns the directory" case is split into two.

Let me try to simplify this, maybe to something like:

• the package itself owns the directory
  by listing it in +%files+ with a %dir directive
• another package in its direct or transitive dependencies
  owns the directory
• the filesystem package owns the directory

This also allows you to simplify the following paragraphs.

The list and this paragraph are a bit confusing, I think because the "a required package owns the directory" case is split into two.

Let me try to simplify this, maybe to something like:

• the package itself owns the directory
  by listing it in +%files+ with a %dir directive
• another package in its direct or transitive dependencies
  owns the directory
• the filesystem package owns the directory

This also allows you to simplify the following paragraphs.

Yes, that is true, there is no real need to separate between "natural dependencies" and "filesystem package dependencies" in this list. I was mainly concerned with getting the special filesystem package on its own row and more or less kept the rest as they were initially.

I added another commit than changes the list to your suggestion and attempts to simplify the following prose as much as possible while still discussing the difference between shared ownership and filesystem packages.

Rebased to master
and added the following:

• Applied semantic linebreaks to changed paragraphs
• Moved unrelated typo fixes to their own pull request #1089
• Fixed inaccurate discussion of the same topic in Unowned directories subpage.

the directory does not belong to the core filesystem package
Maybe even drop "core" here? We don't have a concept of "core packages", but here it sounds like if there was some special meaning.

[with fixed formatting, I cannot edit my comment for some reason]:

the directory does not belong to the core filesystem package

Maybe even drop "core" here? We don't have a concept of "core packages", but here it sounds like if there was some special meaning.

Looks good to me.

the directory does not belong to the core filesystem package

Maybe even drop "core" here? We don't have a concept of "core packages", but here it sounds like if there was some special meaning.

Yes, that was just carried over from the old wording. Dropped.

Redundant, this should either be
"Every directory a package places files into"
or
"Every directory where a package puts files"

("installs" might even be better than places/puts, in either case)

Redundant, this should either be
"Every directory a package places files into"
or
"Every directory where a package puts files"

("installs" might even be better than places/puts, in either case)

Thank you for the review.
I went with your second option, and used the term "install" as well.