Do we need the static files for anything?
You could install the man pages for the corresponding binaries installed, they are found in nss/doc/nroff
for loops could be replaced with a single install line e.g. install -Dt $installdir%libdir% -m00644 dist/Linux*/lib/*.chk
From reading the COPYING file GPL-2.0 and LGPL-2.1 should be added to licences

In D1499#24599, @joebonrichie wrote:

Since I accidentally duplicated your work, I have some thoughts, doesn't mean you should implement them per say.

Do we need the static files for anything?
You could install the man pages for the corresponding binaries installed, they are found in nss/doc/nroff
for loops could be replaced with a single install line e.g. install -Dt $installdir%libdir% -m00644 dist/Linux*/lib/*.chk
From reading the COPYING file GPL-2.0 and LGPL-2.1 should be added to licences

Good point for the licenses. I saw it was released under MPL-2.0 but I didn't check further.

Regarding the package, I don't know why static libraries are shipped. I know that @ikey prefers that I split the work in multiple phases (i.e: convert the package without changing it, then make the modifications in a next update) so it's easier to tackle eventual issues and it doesn't remain in the queue during months (like the conversion/update/modifications I made all together for the cups package for example).
The only "change" I made to the package during the conversion was using %libdir% so libs are now in /usr/lib64 i.s.o. /usr/lib.

This of course, doesn't apply for you as you're more skilled/experienced than I am.

I never add man pages/docs for the packages that are in system.base/system.devel unless there is a request for it. But if you do so, you might consider adding -docs pattern (depending on the size) to prevent the base image from growing unnecessarily.