Overall package looks good to me to be included in Fedora. Results from fedora-review tool run looks green. Package builds, installs and basic functionalities from provided utilities works as expected.

One small change:
Add gcc as BuildRequires - as per packaging guideline for C applications https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B#BuildRequires_and_Requires

Detail from fedora-review tool run is available below:

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

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


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

C/C++:
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:

[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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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]: 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:
[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: No rpmlint messages.
[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: dmtx-utils-0.7.4-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm
          dmtx-utils-debuginfo-0.7.4-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm
          dmtx-utils-0.7.4-1.fc27.src.rpm
dmtx-utils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libdmtx -> libido
dmtx-utils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libdmtx -> libido
dmtx-utils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dmtxread -> readmitted
dmtx-utils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dmtxwrite -> underwrite
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: dmtx-utils-debuginfo-0.7.4-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
dmtx-utils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libdmtx -> libido
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.



Requires
--------
dmtx-utils-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

dmtx-utils (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libMagickCore-6.Q16.so.2()(64bit)
    libMagickWand-6.Q16.so.2()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libdmtx.so.0()(64bit)
    libgomp.so.1()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
dmtx-utils-debuginfo:
    dmtx-utils-debuginfo
    dmtx-utils-debuginfo(x86-64)

dmtx-utils:
    dmtx-utils
    dmtx-utils(x86-64)
    libdmtx-utils



Source checksums
----------------
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/libdmtx/dmtx-utils-0.7.4.tar.bz2 :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 9f510f6c26a2a73e44da28eae78308973cc274043873cc7f90606624066ec7d0
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9f510f6c26a2a73e44da28eae78308973cc274043873cc7f90606624066ec7d0


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n dmtx-utils
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

Updated Spec URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/dmtx-utils.spec
Updated SRPM URL: http://fedora.danny.cz/dmtx-utils-0.7.4-2.fc24.src.rpm

Changes:
- added BR: gcc

great! Adding review+

Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/dmtx-utils