Note: This is not a formal review.

1. Package doesn't build in Mock.  Looks like your missing some BuildRequires. 
For information on Mock, refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/MockTricks.
2. Duplicate BuildRequires:  automake (by php-devel), php (by php-devel),
autoconf (by php-devel), libtool & gcc-c++ (provided in base install in Mock)

Thank for your comment.

Here is the new spec.

http://remi.collet.free.fr/rpms/extras/php-pecl-zip.spec
http://remi.collet.free.fr/rpms/extras/php-pecl-zip-1.3.1-2.fc5.src.rpm

1/ upgrade to new version
2/ BuildRoot and Requires corrected
3/ Build with mock succed.

MUST ITEM CHECKLIST:
- rpmlint output:
W: php-pecl-zip invalid-license PHP License
W: php-pecl-zip incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.3.0-8.fc5 1.3.1-2.fc5
W: php-pecl-zip invalid-license PHP License
W: php-pecl-zip-debuginfo invalid-license PHP License

Fix Changelog version numbers.  Do not put dist in version numbers unless the
package is specific to that dist only.

The license file warnings are okay to ignore, rpmlint will recognize "PHP
License" in a future release.

- package is named according to php packaging naming guidelines
- spec file name matches %{name}
- package meets packaging guidelines
- package is licensed with open source compatible license
- license field matches actual license
- source does not contain license file
- spec file is in American English (and french)
- spec file is legible
- sources match upstream
d78c8d076b8ced344b3950b1e5299411  zip-1.3.1.tgz
- package successfully compiles and builds on FC-5 x86_64
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires
- package does not use locales
- package does not contain shared libraries in default paths (no need to run
ldconfig)
- package is not relocatable
- package owns all directories it creates
- package does not contain any duplicate %files
- permissions are set properly
- package contains proper %clean section
- macro usage is consistant
- package contains permissible content
- package does not have large documentation
- package does not include header files or static libraries
- package does not use pkgconfig files
- package does not contain library with suffix
- package does not require a devel subpackage
- package does not contain any .la files
- package is not a gui and does not need a .desktop file
- package does not own files or directories owned by other packages

MUST
- Must add Provides: php-pecl(zip)
- Must remove unneeded Requires: zlib

SHOULD
- Investigate what package re2c is used for in this package and determine if it
would be useful to add:
configure: WARNING: You will need re2c 0.9.11 or later if you want to regenerate
 PHP parsers.
- Attach the PHP License file as a source file and include it in %doc
- Use %defattr(-,root,root,-) the defaults are the same

I don't see any use of re2c in the makefile. Probably come from a generic pecl
configure.

Here is new spec :
SPEC : http://remi.collet.free.fr/rpms/extras/php-pecl-zip.spec
SRPM : http://remi.collet.free.fr/rpms/extras/php-pecl-zip-1.4.1-1.fc5.src.rpm
Mock : http://remi.collet.free.fr/rpms/extras/php-pecl-zip-build.log

Changes :
- update to 1.4.1
- bundle the v3.01 PHP LICENSE file
- Suppr. Requires zip, Add Provides php-pecl(zip) and php-zip
- change defattr

php-zip is provided according to new PHP guidelines.

All items fixed.

Please add %{version}-%{release} to php-pecl(zip) in Provides or else let me
know why it should not be there.

APPROVED

I think the Group tags for pecl and pear packages are completely reversed as
they currently stand.  I believe pecl packages should be Development/Libraries
and pear packages should be Development/Languages.  I'm waiting to hear back
from Fedora-Packaging on this.

Don't let the group tag thing prevent you from checking this into cvs, or is
there another reason why this has not been checked into cvs yet?

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-June/msg01130.html:

      * As a result of the PHP guidelines not being approved, a
        moratorium was placed on all php packages. JasonTibbs announced
        this on the fedora-extras and fedora-maintainers lists.

Comment 8 doesn't mean this can't be checked to CVS though, but that it
shouldn't be shipped yet before the guidelines are finalized and approved.

After checking this into CVS, please add:

%define apiver %((phpize --version 2>/dev/null || echo 'PHP Api Version:
20041225' ) | sed -n '/PHP Api Version/ s/.*:  *//p')

And change Requires: php to:
Requires: php-api >= %{apiver}

Approved version 1.4.1-1 push to CVS.
Waiting for PHP guidelines being approved before building it and adding the
suggestion (Comment #5 and #10)

Version 1.7.2 push to CVS and build for devel.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: php-pecl-zip
New Branches: EL-5

branched for EL-5

The entry added to owners.epel.list is malformed, it's missing a trailing "|"
and causes tracebacks on commits.

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/tickets/customer.pl?Action=CustomerTicketZoom&TicketID=1044

[...]
Checking in sources;
/cvs/extras/rpms/perl-Set-IntSpan/devel/sources,v  <--  sources
new revision: 1.6; previous revision: 1.5
done
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/cvs/extras/CVSROOT/getnotifylist", line 26, in ?
    owners = owners.OwnerList(populate_all = 0)
   File "/cvs/extras/CVSROOT/owners.py", line 47, in __init__
    self.populate_owners()
  File "/cvs/extras/CVSROOT/owners.py", line 121, in populate_owners
    parse_file(self.owners_epel_list)
  File "/cvs/extras/CVSROOT/owners.py", line 103, in parse_file
    (product, component, desc, owner, qa, cclist) = l.split("|")
ValueError: unpack list of wrong size
Running syncmail...
Mailing cvsextras.com ...
...syncmail done.
[...]

thanks.  fixed 

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: php-pecl-zip
New Branches: EL-4 

cvs done.

Any chance to get this into EL-6 an FC16, where zip extensions has been removed from php package? See bz#551513