Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/remicollet/remirepo/73a2c97649505cf62cf83db5acc253015c658c0d/php/php-ZendOptimizerPlus/php-ZendOptimizerPlus.spec SRPM URL: http://rpms.famillecollet.com/SRPMS/php-ZendOptimizerPlus-7.0.0-0.3.gita84b588.remi.src.rpm Description: The Zend Optimizer+ provides faster PHP execution through opcode caching and optimization. It improves PHP performance by storing precompiled script bytecode in the shared memory. This eliminates the stages of reading code from the disk and compiling it on future access. In addition, it applies a few bytecode optimization patterns that make code execution faster. Fedora Account System Username: remi
This extension should be part of PHP 5.5 or 5.6. https://wiki.php.net/rfc/optimizerplus So this package is only for previous versions (and will very probably obsolete APC in a near future)
I prefer to differ a little this review, waiting for merge in php-src (should be before 5.5alpha5, planed for March 7th) to see which will be the extension name, and to avoid a package renaming.
Ok, no problem. Feel free to ping me when that's ok.
This extension is now released in the PECL channel, and ready (I hope) for review. Spec: https://raw.github.com/remicollet/remirepo/c075041a5f8f8c43e3e0561654fb90cf19ce28ad/php/pecl/php-pecl-zendoptimizerplus/php-pecl-zendoptimizerplus.spec Srpm: http://rpms.famillecollet.com/SRPMS/php-pecl-zendoptimizerplus-7.0.0-1.remi.src.rpm
Allow to install with APC >= 3.1.15 (for user data cache only): https://github.com/remicollet/remirepo/commit/dba68c07178433dd5c88b7f211deffeb1cbf07a0 Spec: https://raw.github.com/remicollet/remirepo/dba68c07178433dd5c88b7f211deffeb1cbf07a0/php/pecl/php-pecl-zendoptimizerplus/php-pecl-zendoptimizerplus.spec Srpm: http://rpms.famillecollet.com/SRPMS/php-pecl-zendoptimizerplus-7.0.0-2.remi.src.rpm
Unfortunately, I will not have time for this review until a few weeks :/ I will unassign myself, if someone would like to take it.
I prefer to switch to latest github snapshot, where the tree is in sync with php-src. The extension have been renamed to "opcache" and is now part of php 5.5. Spec: https://raw.github.com/remicollet/remirepo/bf8361c187827bf95bd2b29f1c2a4430432f1f51/php/pecl/php-pecl-zendoptimizerplus/php-pecl-zendoptimizerplus.spec Srpm: http://rpms.famillecollet.com/SRPMS/php-pecl-zendoptimizerplus-7.0.1-0.1.gitcef6093.remi.src.rpm
Upstream project have been renamed to ZendOpcache, so : https://github.com/remicollet/remirepo/commit/a30c5d2d6c7a82ce852245ab2772b31a8b6050da Spec: https://raw.github.com/remicollet/remirepo/a30c5d2d6c7a82ce852245ab2772b31a8b6050da/php/pecl/php-pecl-zendopcache/php-pecl-zendopcache.spec Srpm: http://rpms.famillecollet.com/SRPMS/php-pecl-zendopcache-7.0.1-1.remi.src.rpm As PHP 5.5.0 is already imported in Fedora 19, and already provides this extension (php-opcache package), this new package only target F17, F18 and EPEL-6. I think we have now the final name ;)
Apply 2 upstream patch to allow comments in blacklist content and wildcard in blacklist filename (to keep conf in sync with 5.5.0beta3 in F19). https://github.com/remicollet/remirepo/commit/a5af16cb74375955d440b3435805fe08735dbaaa Spec: https://raw.github.com/remicollet/remirepo/a5af16cb74375955d440b3435805fe08735dbaaa/php/pecl/php-pecl-zendopcache/php-pecl-zendopcache.spec Srpm: http://rpms.famillecollet.com/SRPMS/php-pecl-zendopcache-7.0.1-2.remi.src.rpm
[ O K ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. $ rpmlint <spec> <srpm> <rpm> [jsmith@hockey PackageReview]$ rpmlint php-pecl-zendopcache.spec php-pecl-zendopcache-7.0.1-2.remi.src.rpm /home/jsmith/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/php-pecl-zendopcache-7.0.1-2.fc18.x86_64.rpm php-pecl-zendopcache.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US opcode -> op code, op-code, code php-pecl-zendopcache.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US precompiled -> recompiled, p recompiled, recompile php-pecl-zendopcache.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bytecode -> byte code, byte-code, decorate php-pecl-zendopcache.src: E: unknown-key GPG#00f97f56 php-pecl-zendopcache.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US opcode -> op code, op-code, code php-pecl-zendopcache.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US precompiled -> recompiled, p recompiled, recompile php-pecl-zendopcache.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bytecode -> byte code, byte-code, decorate 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings. Notice that the error is about an unknown signing key, and not relevant to the package review. [ O K ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ O K ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [ O K ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [ O K ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. [ O K ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [ O K ] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc. [ O K ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [ O K ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [ O K ] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. [jsmith@hockey PackageReview]$ md5sum ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES/zendopcache-7.0.1.tgz ; curl -s -o - http://pecl.php.net/get/zendopcache-7.0.1.tgz | md5sum - 3a0a43a4819c72763bc35ecf5689221e /home/jsmith/rpmbuild/SOURCES/zendopcache-7.0.1.tgz 3a0a43a4819c72763bc35ecf5689221e - [ O K ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [ N/A ] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. [ O K ] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. [ N/A ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. [ N/A ] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [ O K ] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [ N/A ] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. [ O K ] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [ O K ] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations) [ O K ] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. [ O K ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [ O K ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. [ O K ] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [ O K ] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. [ N/A ] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [ N/A ] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [ N/A ] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [ N/A ] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [ O K ] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [ N/A ] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. [ N/A ] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. [ O K ] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [ N/A ] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [ X ] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [ O K ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [ O K ] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ O K ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. [ N/A ] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [ N/A ] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [ N/A ] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [ N/A ] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. [ N/A ] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. Package is approved.
Great thanks for this review No F19 branch as this package is f18 and el6 only. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: php-pecl-zendopcache Short Description: The Zend OPcache Owners: remi Branches: f17 f18 el6 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests). Added f19 branch.
Avaiable in F17, F18 and EPEL-6 repository.