Same version, new location:   
   
http://www.fc.up.pt/pessoas/jamatos/fedora-extras/R-mAr.spec 
http://www.fc.up.pt/pessoas/jamatos/fedora-extras/R-mAr-1.1-1.src.rpm 
 
As soon as I get a review of this package I will submit more R packages 
that are in the queue since its packaging it is mostly similar. 

Agreed. This looks exactly like the template I was using for the CRAN packages I
had in the queue.

The only difference is that I also have:

%check
%{_bindir}/R CMD check %{packname}

I also have tetex-latex as a BuildRequires, since it seems to need it for many
packages to generate the docs. 

Minor changes:
%doc DESCRIPTION COPYING doesn't seem to be needed as these files end up in
%{_libdir}/R/library/%{packname} as part of the install process.

%check should be:

cd ..;%{_bindir}/R CMD check %{packname}

With the changes I describe above applied...

Good:

- rpmlint checks return:
W: R-mAr invalid-license GPL version 2 or newer
(rpmlint making noise)
E: R-mAr no-binary
E: R-mAr only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
(safe to ignore for R packages)
W: R-mAr no-documentation
W: R-mAr dangerous-command-in-%post perl
W: R-mAr dangerous-command-in-%postun perl
(safe to ignore)

- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
- license (GPL) OK, text included, matches source
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream
- package compiles on devel (x86)
- no missing BR
- no unnecessary BR
- no locales
- not relocatable
- owns all directories that it creates
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok
- %clean ok
- macro use consistent
- code, not content
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc
- no need for .desktop file

APPROVED, assuming my changes are applied (BR: tetex-latex, no duplication of
docs, use of %check).

With this sort of a template, these packages should be quick to review. :)

I have applied all your suggestions and I have imported the package. 
 
Thank you. 

Build on target development succeeded.