fedora-copr/log_detective_qna huggingface dataset:
Given following log snippets, their explanation, and nothing else, explain what failure, if any, occurred during build of this package.

  Snippets are in a format of [X] : [Y], where [X] is a log snippet, and [Y] is the explanation.

  Snippets are delimited with '================'.

  Drawing on information from all snippets, provide a concise explanation of the issue and recommend a solution.

  Explanation of the issue, and recommended solution, should take a handful of sentences.

  Snippets:

  [DEBUG util.py:461:  Failed to resolve the transaction:
DEBUG util.py:461:  Problem: package webkit2gtk4.0-devel-2.42.3-1.fc40.x86_64 requires webkit2gtk4.0(x86-64) = 2.42.3-1.fc40, but none of the providers can be installed
DEBUG util.py:461:    - package webkit2gtk4.0-devel-2.42.3-1.fc40.x86_64 requires libwebkit2gtk-4.0.so.37()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
DEBUG util.py:461:    - conflicting requests
DEBUG util.py:461:    - nothing provides libWPEBackend-fdo-1.0.so.1()(64bit) needed by webkit2gtk4.0-2.42.3-1.fc40.x86_64
DEBUG util.py:461:    - nothing provides libwpe-1.0.so.1()(64bit) needed by webkit2gtk4.0-2.42.3-1.fc40.x86_64
DEBUG util.py:610:  Child return code was: 1]: [DNF complaining about a non-resolvable RPM transaction.]


Answer: Issue: The webkit2gtk4.0 package (present in buildroot) is not installable.

The webkit2gtk4.0-devel depends on webkit2gtk4.0, and that depends on libwpe-1.0.so.1()(64bit) and libWPEBackend-fdo-1.0.so.1()(64bit) sonames. These are though not provided by any package in the build repository (buildroot).
Resolution: Fix the webkit2gtk4.0 package so it is installable.
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
DEBUG util.py:461:  Failed to resolve the transaction:
DEBUG util.py:461:  Problem: package webkit2gtk4.0-devel-2.42.3-1.fc40.x86_64 requires webkit2gtk4.0(x86-64) = 2.42.3-1.fc40, but none of the providers can be installed
DEBUG util.py:461:    - package webkit2gtk4.0-devel-2.42.3-1.fc40.x86_64 requires libwebkit2gtk-4.0.so.37()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
DEBUG util.py:461:    - conflicting requests
DEBUG util.py:461:    - nothing provides libWPEBackend-fdo-1.0.so.1()(64bit) needed by webkit2gtk4.0-2.42.3-1.fc40.x86_64
DEBUG util.py:461:    - nothing provides libwpe-1.0.so.1()(64bit) needed by webkit2gtk4.0-2.42.3-1.fc40.x86_64
DEBUG util.py:610:  Child return code was: 1

Answer: DNF complaining about a non-resolvable RPM transaction.
Given following log snippets, their explanation, and nothing else, explain what failure, if any, occurred during build of this package.

  Snippets are in a format of [X] : [Y], where [X] is a log snippet, and [Y] is the explanation.

  Snippets are delimited with '================'.

  Drawing on information from all snippets, provide a concise explanation of the issue and recommend a solution.

  Explanation of the issue, and recommended solution, should take a handful of sentences.

  Snippets:

  [Run-time dependency bash-completion found: NO (tried pkgconfig)
bash-completion/meson.build:3:13: ERROR: Dependency "bash-completion" not found, tried pkgconfig]: [This snippet shows the error which caused the build failure]


Answer: Issue: Because of a missing dependency on "bash-completion"
Resolution: Add the `BuildRequires:  bash-completion` into the spec file.
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
Run-time dependency bash-completion found: NO (tried pkgconfig)
bash-completion/meson.build:3:13: ERROR: Dependency "bash-completion" not found, tried pkgconfig

Answer: This snippet shows the error which caused the build failure
Given following log snippets, their explanation, and nothing else, explain what failure, if any, occurred during build of this package.

  Snippets are in a format of [X] : [Y], where [X] is a log snippet, and [Y] is the explanation.

  Snippets are delimited with '================'.

  Drawing on information from all snippets, provide a concise explanation of the issue and recommend a solution.

  Explanation of the issue, and recommended solution, should take a handful of sentences.

  Snippets:

  [download_url = https://${git_props:remote_netloc}/repo/pkgs/%(repo_path)s/%(filename)s/%(hashtype)s/%(hash)s/%(filename)s
]: [Incorrect url]
=============
[stdout: Downloading mesa-24.3.4.tar.xz from JMarcosHP/mesa-custom at github.com:
]: [rpkg is downloading a non existent source, the source link is specified in .spec]


Answer: Issue: Incorrect source download link, not using the specified source download link from the .spec file
Resolution: Prefer spec file source link instead of git repository source, let the users decide where to get the source link
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
download_url = https://${git_props:remote_netloc}/repo/pkgs/%(repo_path)s/%(filename)s/%(hashtype)s/%(hash)s/%(filename)s


Answer: Incorrect url
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
stdout: Downloading mesa-24.3.4.tar.xz from JMarcosHP/mesa-custom at github.com:


Answer: rpkg is downloading a non existent source, the source link is specified in .spec
Given following log snippets, their explanation, and nothing else, explain what failure, if any, occurred during build of this package.

  Snippets are in a format of [X] : [Y], where [X] is a log snippet, and [Y] is the explanation.

  Snippets are delimited with '================'.

  Drawing on information from all snippets, provide a concise explanation of the issue and recommend a solution.

  Explanation of the issue, and recommended solution, should take a handful of sentences.

  Snippets:

  [Error: Invalid value for '[PATH_OR_URL]': Cmd('git') failed due to: exit code(128)
  cmdline: git fetch -v -- origin +refs/pull/37301/head:refs/remotes/origin/pr-changes/37301
  stderr: 'fatal: couldn't find remote ref refs/pull/37301/head']: [This seems like Packit wasn't able to clone PR HEAD]
=============
[Try 'packit prepare-sources -h' for help.]: [Packit performed a build]


Answer: Issue: Build failed because Packit wasn't able to download Sources from PR HEAD
Resolution: Try to rerun Packit in PR by force-pushing PR or by commenting on PR with /packit rebuild-failed
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
Error: Invalid value for '[PATH_OR_URL]': Cmd('git') failed due to: exit code(128)
  cmdline: git fetch -v -- origin +refs/pull/37301/head:refs/remotes/origin/pr-changes/37301
  stderr: 'fatal: couldn't find remote ref refs/pull/37301/head'

Answer: This seems like Packit wasn't able to clone PR HEAD
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
Try 'packit prepare-sources -h' for help.

Answer: Packit performed a build
Given following log snippets, their explanation, and nothing else, explain what failure, if any, occurred during build of this package.

  Snippets are in a format of [X] : [Y], where [X] is a log snippet, and [Y] is the explanation.

  Snippets are delimited with '================'.

  Drawing on information from all snippets, provide a concise explanation of the issue and recommend a solution.

  Explanation of the issue, and recommended solution, should take a handful of sentences.

  Snippets:

  [copypass.c: In function ‘process_copy_pass’:
copypass.c:104:12: error: too many arguments to function ‘xstat’; expected 0, have 2
  104 |       if ((*xstat) (input_name.ds_string, &in_file_stat) < 0)]: [The relevant error messages saying that there are too many arguments passed to function ‘xstat’ ]


Answer: Issue: This code just built fine with gcc 14 and older but failed to build with gcc 15 which is defaulting to -std=gnu23 and due to the gcc bug https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118112
Resolution: The fix for gcc bug is still in progress. Adding  -std=gnu17 to CFLAGS is a workaround for the build failure.
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
copypass.c: In function ‘process_copy_pass’:
copypass.c:104:12: error: too many arguments to function ‘xstat’; expected 0, have 2
  104 |       if ((*xstat) (input_name.ds_string, &in_file_stat) < 0)

Answer: The relevant error messages saying that there are too many arguments passed to function ‘xstat’
Given following log snippets, their explanation, and nothing else, explain what failure, if any, occurred during build of this package.

  Snippets are in a format of [X] : [Y], where [X] is a log snippet, and [Y] is the explanation.

  Snippets are delimited with '================'.

  Drawing on information from all snippets, provide a concise explanation of the issue and recommend a solution.

  Explanation of the issue, and recommended solution, should take a handful of sentences.

  Snippets:

  [/usr/bin/rspec:25: warning: syslog is not part of the default gems starting from Ruby 3.4.0. Install syslog from RubyGems.]: [Warning coming from Ruby 3.4, suggesting at possible problems]
=============
[Failure/Error: require 'syslog'
LoadError:
  cannot load such file -- syslog]: [`syslog` library can't be loaded]


Answer: Issue: Ruby 3.4 removed syslog from default gems, therefore it is not installed by default anymore.
Resolution: Explicitly specified dependency on `syslog` by e.g. `BuildRequires: rubygem(syslog)`
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
/usr/bin/rspec:25: warning: syslog is not part of the default gems starting from Ruby 3.4.0. Install syslog from RubyGems.

Answer: Warning coming from Ruby 3.4, suggesting at possible problems
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
Failure/Error: require 'syslog'
LoadError:
  cannot load such file -- syslog

Answer: `syslog` library can't be loaded
Given following log snippets, their explanation, and nothing else, explain what failure, if any, occurred during build of this package.

  Snippets are in a format of [X] : [Y], where [X] is a log snippet, and [Y] is the explanation.

  Snippets are delimited with '================'.

  Drawing on information from all snippets, provide a concise explanation of the issue and recommend a solution.

  Explanation of the issue, and recommended solution, should take a handful of sentences.

  Snippets:

  [o/main.c:1475:14: error: ‘bfd_mach_common64’ undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean ‘bfd_mach_msp26’?]: [Undeclared type, most likely caused by building on a different architecture than expected.]


Answer: Issue: The build failed because the bfd_architecture enum from the bfd.h library returns architecture specific results, the bfd_mach_common64 is most likely not declared on the ppc64ie arch.
Resolution: Modify the expected output of the bfd_architecture enum based n the architecture being used for building.
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
o/main.c:1475:14: error: ‘bfd_mach_common64’ undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean ‘bfd_mach_msp26’?

Answer: Undeclared type, most likely caused by building on a different architecture than expected.
Given following log snippets, their explanation, and nothing else, explain what failure, if any, occurred during build of this package.

  Snippets are in a format of [X] : [Y], where [X] is a log snippet, and [Y] is the explanation.

  Snippets are delimited with '================'.

  Drawing on information from all snippets, provide a concise explanation of the issue and recommend a solution.

  Explanation of the issue, and recommended solution, should take a handful of sentences.

  Snippets:

  [Run-time dependency libclc found: NO (tried pkgconfig)
meson.build:833:12: ERROR: Dependency "libclc" not found, tried pkgconfig]: [It lists the missing dependency.]


Answer: Issue: There is a missing dependency on the libclc C library.
Resolution: Add a BuildRequires for pkgconfig(libclc) into the spec file.
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
Run-time dependency libclc found: NO (tried pkgconfig)
meson.build:833:12: ERROR: Dependency "libclc" not found, tried pkgconfig

Answer: It lists the missing dependency.
Given following log snippets, their explanation, and nothing else, explain what failure, if any, occurred during build of this package.

  Snippets are in a format of [X] : [Y], where [X] is a log snippet, and [Y] is the explanation.

  Snippets are delimited with '================'.

  Drawing on information from all snippets, provide a concise explanation of the issue and recommend a solution.

  Explanation of the issue, and recommended solution, should take a handful of sentences.

  Snippets:

  [RPM build errors:
]: [You can find build errors below this line.]
=============
[File must begin with "/": %{_sysusersdir}/testcloud.conf
]: [This error says a file path didn't start with a slash. That very often means that the included macro wasn't expanded as expected.]


Answer: Issue: All files must be specified with an absolute path, but in this case, one of the files wasn't. Most likely, the included macro %{_sysusersdir} wasn't expanded properly, most likely because it was undefined.
Resolution: Make sure that all files are specified with an absolute path. If there are macros in their path, make sure the macros are defined.
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
RPM build errors:


Answer: You can find build errors below this line.
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
File must begin with "/": %{_sysusersdir}/testcloud.conf


Answer: This error says a file path didn't start with a slash. That very often means that the included macro wasn't expanded as expected.
Given following log snippets, their explanation, and nothing else, explain what failure, if any, occurred during build of this package.

  Snippets are in a format of [X] : [Y], where [X] is a log snippet, and [Y] is the explanation.

  Snippets are delimited with '================'.

  Drawing on information from all snippets, provide a concise explanation of the issue and recommend a solution.

  Explanation of the issue, and recommended solution, should take a handful of sentences.

  Snippets:

  [
ERROR 1698 (28000): Access denied for user 'root'@'localhos]: [This error message indicates that the user "root" attempting to connect to the MySQL server from the local host (localhost) is not authorized to perform the requested actions. The specific action that failed was attempting to alter the password for the "root" user and create a new database named "test_db".]


Answer: Issue: One of the tests failed for your package aws-xray-sdk-python in the %check section.
Resolution: To resolve this error, you will need to verify that the password for the "root" user is correct. You can do this by running the following command:

mysql -u root -p

This will prompt you to enter the password for the "root" user. If the password is incorrect, you will be denied access to the database. If the password is correct, you will be presented with the MySQL command prompt.

Once you have verified that the password is correct, you can retry the original command to alter the password for the "root" user and create the new database.

Here is the complete command again:

mysql -u root -S /builddir/build/BUILD/aws-xray-sdk-python-2.12.1/mysql.sock -P 13573 -e 'ALTER USER ''root''@''localhost'' IDENTIFIED BY '''root'';
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 

ERROR 1698 (28000): Access denied for user 'root'@'localhos

Answer: This error message indicates that the user "root" attempting to connect to the MySQL server from the local host (localhost) is not authorized to perform the requested actions. The specific action that failed was attempting to alter the password for the "root" user and create a new database named "test_db".
Given following log snippets, their explanation, and nothing else, explain what failure, if any, occurred during build of this package.

  Snippets are in a format of [X] : [Y], where [X] is a log snippet, and [Y] is the explanation.

  Snippets are delimited with '================'.

  Drawing on information from all snippets, provide a concise explanation of the issue and recommend a solution.

  Explanation of the issue, and recommended solution, should take a handful of sentences.

  Snippets:

  [error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.ZDjrxa (%install)
RPM build errors:
    Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.ZDjrxa (%install)
]: [The build failed in %install section.]
=============
[+ install -d -p -m 755 chibicc /builddir/build/BUILD/chibicc-0.0_20201207.90d1f7f-build/BUILDROOT/usr/bin/chibicc
install: cannot create directory ‘chibicc’: File exists]: [The `install`command failed.]


Answer: Issue: You used `install -d` instead of `install -D`. Option `-d` threat all arguments as directory names, but you are installing normal file.
Resolution: Use `install -D` instead of `install -d` in the %install section of the SPEC file.
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.ZDjrxa (%install)
RPM build errors:
    Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.ZDjrxa (%install)


Answer: The build failed in %install section.
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
+ install -d -p -m 755 chibicc /builddir/build/BUILD/chibicc-0.0_20201207.90d1f7f-build/BUILDROOT/usr/bin/chibicc
install: cannot create directory ‘chibicc’: File exists

Answer: The `install`command failed.
Given following log snippets, their explanation, and nothing else, explain what failure, if any, occurred during build of this package.

  Snippets are in a format of [X] : [Y], where [X] is a log snippet, and [Y] is the explanation.

  Snippets are delimited with '================'.

  Drawing on information from all snippets, provide a concise explanation of the issue and recommend a solution.

  Explanation of the issue, and recommended solution, should take a handful of sentences.

  Snippets:

  [+ ruby -Ilib:spec -e 'Dir.glob "./spec/*spec.rb", &method(:require)'
Run options: --seed 53807
# Running:
.......................................................................................................F.........F..................
Finished in 7.228097s, 18.2621 runs/s, 29.0533 assertions/s.
  1) Failure:
Hitimes::TimedValueMetric#test_0008_calculates the stddev of the durations [spec/timed_value_metric_spec.rb:61]:
Expected |0.05 - 0.047793456202974996| (0.002206543797025007) to be <= 0.001.
  2) Failure:
Hitimes::TimedValueMetric#test_0017_can measure a block of code from an instance [spec/timed_value_metric_spec.rb:125]:
Expected |0.15 - 0.16569746200000002| (0.015697462000000023) to be <= 0.004.
132 runs, 210 assertions, 2 failures, 0 errors, 0 skips]: [Test failure. These tests measure time and comparing that the difference is in range.]
=============
[DEBUG buildroot.py:867:  kernel version == 6.12.13-200.fc41.ppc64le]: [ppc64le platform can be slower with regards to execution and time sensitive tests do not account for slower (or software virtualized) platforms.]


Answer: Issue: The time-based tests were not bet ween 0 and 0.001 and 0.004.
Resolution: Re-run the build, the tests might pass.
Ignore these time-sensitive tests as they are unreliable. Increase the time difference expected in tests, which would take into account slower platforms.
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
+ ruby -Ilib:spec -e 'Dir.glob "./spec/*spec.rb", &method(:require)'
Run options: --seed 53807
# Running:
.......................................................................................................F.........F..................
Finished in 7.228097s, 18.2621 runs/s, 29.0533 assertions/s.
  1) Failure:
Hitimes::TimedValueMetric#test_0008_calculates the stddev of the durations [spec/timed_value_metric_spec.rb:61]:
Expected |0.05 - 0.047793456202974996| (0.002206543797025007) to be <= 0.001.
  2) Failure:
Hitimes::TimedValueMetric#test_0017_can measure a block of code from an instance [spec/timed_value_metric_spec.rb:125]:
Expected |0.15 - 0.16569746200000002| (0.015697462000000023) to be <= 0.004.
132 runs, 210 assertions, 2 failures, 0 errors, 0 skips

Answer: Test failure. These tests measure time and comparing that the difference is in range.
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
DEBUG buildroot.py:867:  kernel version == 6.12.13-200.fc41.ppc64le

Answer: ppc64le platform can be slower with regards to execution and time sensitive tests do not account for slower (or software virtualized) platforms.
Given following log snippets, their explanation, and nothing else, explain what failure, if any, occurred during build of this package.

  Snippets are in a format of [X] : [Y], where [X] is a log snippet, and [Y] is the explanation.

  Snippets are delimited with '================'.

  Drawing on information from all snippets, provide a concise explanation of the issue and recommend a solution.

  Explanation of the issue, and recommended solution, should take a handful of sentences.

  Snippets:

  [Errors during downloading metadata for repository 'mageia':
  - Curl error (28): Timeout was reached for https://www.mageia.org/mirrorlist/?release=8&arch=aarch64&section=core&repo=release [Connection timeout after 30000 ms]
  - Curl error (28): Timeout was reached for https://www.mageia.org/mirrorlist/?release=8&arch=aarch64&section=core&repo=release [Failed to connect to www.mageia.org port 443 after 30000 ms: Timeout was reached]
Error: Failed to download metadata for repo 'mageia': Cannot prepare internal mirrorlist: Curl error (28): Timeout was reached for https://www.mageia.org/mirrorlist/?release=8&arch=aarch64&section=core&repo=release [Failed to connect to www.mageia.org port 443 after 30000 ms: Timeout was reached]]: [This is the error output of dnf whet it is trying to download mageia's mirrorlist]


Answer: Issue: dnf is unable to download mirrolist from www.mageia.org
Resolution: No solution. mageia.org is offline, so nothing can be done.
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
Errors during downloading metadata for repository 'mageia':
  - Curl error (28): Timeout was reached for https://www.mageia.org/mirrorlist/?release=8&arch=aarch64&section=core&repo=release [Connection timeout after 30000 ms]
  - Curl error (28): Timeout was reached for https://www.mageia.org/mirrorlist/?release=8&arch=aarch64&section=core&repo=release [Failed to connect to www.mageia.org port 443 after 30000 ms: Timeout was reached]
Error: Failed to download metadata for repo 'mageia': Cannot prepare internal mirrorlist: Curl error (28): Timeout was reached for https://www.mageia.org/mirrorlist/?release=8&arch=aarch64&section=core&repo=release [Failed to connect to www.mageia.org port 443 after 30000 ms: Timeout was reached]

Answer: This is the error output of dnf whet it is trying to download mageia's mirrorlist
Given following log snippets, their explanation, and nothing else, explain what failure, if any, occurred during build of this package.

  Snippets are in a format of [X] : [Y], where [X] is a log snippet, and [Y] is the explanation.

  Snippets are delimited with '================'.

  Drawing on information from all snippets, provide a concise explanation of the issue and recommend a solution.

  Explanation of the issue, and recommended solution, should take a handful of sentences.

  Snippets:

  [No match for argument: pkgconfig(librepo) >= 1.20.0]: [It shows the root cause of the failure.]
=============
[WARNING: DNF5 command failed, retrying, attempt #3, sleeping 10s
Updating and loading repositories:
 updates                                100% | 371.2 KiB/s |   9.7 KiB |  00m00s
 fedora                                 100% |   1.2 MiB/s |  29.8 KiB |  00m00s
 Copr repository                        100% |  50.3 KiB/s |   1.5 KiB |  00m00s
Repositories loaded.
Failed to resolve the transaction:
No match for argument: pkgconfig(librepo) >= 1.20.0]: [It shows the failing dnf run, it fails to resolve the transaction because there is not match for arguemnt: pkgconfig(librepo) >= 1.20.0]


Answer: Issue: The package requires a version of librepo which isn't available.
Resolution: Add a repository with the required librepo version or perhaps release the new librepo version in the already present repositories.
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
No match for argument: pkgconfig(librepo) >= 1.20.0

Answer: It shows the root cause of the failure.
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
WARNING: DNF5 command failed, retrying, attempt #3, sleeping 10s
Updating and loading repositories:
 updates                                100% | 371.2 KiB/s |   9.7 KiB |  00m00s
 fedora                                 100% |   1.2 MiB/s |  29.8 KiB |  00m00s
 Copr repository                        100% |  50.3 KiB/s |   1.5 KiB |  00m00s
Repositories loaded.
Failed to resolve the transaction:
No match for argument: pkgconfig(librepo) >= 1.20.0

Answer: It shows the failing dnf run, it fails to resolve the transaction because there is not match for arguemnt: pkgconfig(librepo) >= 1.20.0
Given following log snippets, their explanation, and nothing else, explain what failure, if any, occurred during build of this package.

  Snippets are in a format of [X] : [Y], where [X] is a log snippet, and [Y] is the explanation.

  Snippets are delimited with '================'.

  Drawing on information from all snippets, provide a concise explanation of the issue and recommend a solution.

  Explanation of the issue, and recommended solution, should take a handful of sentences.

  Snippets:

  [RPM build errors:
    File not found: /builddir/build/BUILD/file-5.46-build/BUILDROOT/usr/share/magic*
]: [This snippet describes the missing file that caused the build to fail.]


Answer: Issue: The build failed because a file listed in the `%files` section was not installed.
Resolution: Either correct your `%files` section or install the missing file to the correct location.
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
RPM build errors:
    File not found: /builddir/build/BUILD/file-5.46-build/BUILDROOT/usr/share/magic*


Answer: This snippet describes the missing file that caused the build to fail.
Given following log snippets, their explanation, and nothing else, explain what failure, if any, occurred during build of this package.

  Snippets are in a format of [X] : [Y], where [X] is a log snippet, and [Y] is the explanation.

  Snippets are delimited with '================'.

  Drawing on information from all snippets, provide a concise explanation of the issue and recommend a solution.

  Explanation of the issue, and recommended solution, should take a handful of sentences.

  Snippets:

  [ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'mailcap'
RPM build errors:
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.6Zl7m0 (%check)
    Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.6Zl7m0 (%check)]: [Python complains about a missing module: mailcap]


Answer: Issue: The build failed due to a missing Python module: mailcap
Resolution: Add the mailcap module (provided by python3-standard-mailcap) to the package build requirements.
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'mailcap'
RPM build errors:
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.6Zl7m0 (%check)
    Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.6Zl7m0 (%check)

Answer: Python complains about a missing module: mailcap
Given following log snippets, their explanation, and nothing else, explain what failure, if any, occurred during build of this package.

  Snippets are in a format of [X] : [Y], where [X] is a log snippet, and [Y] is the explanation.

  Snippets are delimited with '================'.

  Drawing on information from all snippets, provide a concise explanation of the issue and recommend a solution.

  Explanation of the issue, and recommended solution, should take a handful of sentences.

  Snippets:

  [
Copr build error: Build fail]: [Final build failure message.]
=============
[
WARNING: DNF command failed, retrying, attempt #3, sleeping 1]: [Final attempt to install dependencies by DNF.]
=============
[ matches found for the following disable plugin patterns: local, spacewalk, versionlock
Copr repository                                  81 kB/s | 1.5 kB     00:00    
Additional repo http_kojipkgs_fedoraproject_org 173 kB/s | 3.8 kB     00:00    
fedora                                          155 kB/s |  14 kB     00:00    
updates                                          44 kB/s |  13 kB     00:00    
Error: 
 Problem: package usd-devel-23.11-2.fc40.aarch64 from copr_base requires libusd_ms.so.0.23.11()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package usd-devel-23.11-2.fc40.aarch64 fro]: [The `usd-devel` package requires `libopenvdb.so.10.1()(64bit)` and `usd-libs(aarch-64) = 23.11-2.fc40`. But their providers can not be installed.]


Answer: Issue: Required files can not be obtained, as the DNF can not find any available providers.
Resolution: Ensure that all dependencies are available during build.
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 

Copr build error: Build fail

Answer: Final build failure message.
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 

WARNING: DNF command failed, retrying, attempt #3, sleeping 1

Answer: Final attempt to install dependencies by DNF.
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
 matches found for the following disable plugin patterns: local, spacewalk, versionlock
Copr repository                                  81 kB/s | 1.5 kB     00:00    
Additional repo http_kojipkgs_fedoraproject_org 173 kB/s | 3.8 kB     00:00    
fedora                                          155 kB/s |  14 kB     00:00    
updates                                          44 kB/s |  13 kB     00:00    
Error: 
 Problem: package usd-devel-23.11-2.fc40.aarch64 from copr_base requires libusd_ms.so.0.23.11()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package usd-devel-23.11-2.fc40.aarch64 fro

Answer: The `usd-devel` package requires `libopenvdb.so.10.1()(64bit)` and `usd-libs(aarch-64) = 23.11-2.fc40`. But their providers can not be installed.
Given following log snippets, their explanation, and nothing else, explain what failure, if any, occurred during build of this package.

  Snippets are in a format of [X] : [Y], where [X] is a log snippet, and [Y] is the explanation.

  Snippets are delimited with '================'.

  Drawing on information from all snippets, provide a concise explanation of the issue and recommend a solution.

  Explanation of the issue, and recommended solution, should take a handful of sentences.

  Snippets:

  [FAIL: test_mergeinfo_leakage__incorrect_range_t_refcounts (mergeinfo.SubversionMergeinfoTestCase.test_mergeinfo_leakage__incorrect_range_t_refcounts)]: [First failed test.]
=============
[AssertionError: 3 != 4 : Memory leak!  Expected a ref count of 4 for svn_merge_range_t object, but got 3 instead (path: b'/trunk', index: 0).  Probable cause: incorrect Py_INCREF/Py_DECREF usage in libsvn_swig_py/swigutil_py.c.]: [Cause of first failed test.]
=============
[FAIL: test_replay_batons_refcounts (repository.SubversionRepositoryTestCase.test_replay_batons_refcounts)]: [Second failed test.]
=============
[AssertionError: 1 != 2 : leak on editor baton after replay without errors]: [Cause of second failed test.]


Answer: Issue: Two tests failed during the build.
Resolution: It seems there are memory leaks in the build.
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
FAIL: test_mergeinfo_leakage__incorrect_range_t_refcounts (mergeinfo.SubversionMergeinfoTestCase.test_mergeinfo_leakage__incorrect_range_t_refcounts)

Answer: First failed test.
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
AssertionError: 3 != 4 : Memory leak!  Expected a ref count of 4 for svn_merge_range_t object, but got 3 instead (path: b'/trunk', index: 0).  Probable cause: incorrect Py_INCREF/Py_DECREF usage in libsvn_swig_py/swigutil_py.c.

Answer: Cause of first failed test.
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
FAIL: test_replay_batons_refcounts (repository.SubversionRepositoryTestCase.test_replay_batons_refcounts)

Answer: Second failed test.
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
AssertionError: 1 != 2 : leak on editor baton after replay without errors

Answer: Cause of second failed test.
Given following log snippets, their explanation, and nothing else, explain what failure, if any, occurred during build of this package.

  Snippets are in a format of [X] : [Y], where [X] is a log snippet, and [Y] is the explanation.

  Snippets are delimited with '================'.

  Drawing on information from all snippets, provide a concise explanation of the issue and recommend a solution.

  Explanation of the issue, and recommended solution, should take a handful of sentences.

  Snippets:

  [  pip._vendor.urllib3.exceptions.ReadTimeoutError: HTTPSConnectionPool(host='repository.engineering.redhat.com', port=443): Read timed out.]: [This snippet shows that the build is using a custom repository instead of the standard upstream pypi.org.]
=============
[ERROR: Could not find a version that satisfies the requirement cryptography==41.0.7 (from versions: 0.1, 0.2, 0.2.1, 0.2.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.5.1, 0.5.2, 0.5.3, 0.5.4, 0.6, 0.6.1, 0.7, 0.7.1, 0.7.2, 0.8, 0.8.1, 0.8.2, 0.9, 0.9.1, 0.9.2, 0.9.3, 1.0, 1.0.1, 1.0.2, 1.1, 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.2, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.3, 1.3.1, 1.3.2, 1.3.3, 1.3.4, 1.4, 1.5, 1.5.1, 1.5.2, 1.5.3, 1.6, 1.7, 1.7.1, 1.7.2, 1.8, 1.8.1, 1.8.2, 1.9, 2.0, 2.0.1, 2.0.2, 2.0.3, 2.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.1.4, 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.3, 2.3.1, 2.4, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.5, 2.6, 2.6.1, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.9.1, 2.9.2, 3.0, 3.1, 3.1.1, 3.2, 3.2.1, 3.3, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.4.3, 3.4.4, 3.4.5, 3.4.6, 3.4.7, 3.4.8, 35.0.0, 36.0.0, 36.0.1, 36.0.2, 37.0.0, 37.0.1, 37.0.2, 37.0.3, 37.0.4, 38.0.0, 38.0.1, 38.0.2, 38.0.3, 38.0.4, 39.0.0, 39.0.1, 39.0.2, 40.0.0, 40.0.1, 40.0.2, 41.0.0, 41.0.1, 41.0.2, 41.0.3, 41.0.4, 41.0.5, 41.0.6, 41.0.7, 42.0.0, 42.0.1, 42.0.2, 42.0.3, 42.0.4, 42.0.5, 42.0.6, 42.0.7, 42.0.8, 43.0.0, 43.0.1, 43.0.3, 44.0.0, 44.0.1, 44.0.2, 44.0.3, 45.0.0, 45.0.1, 45.0.2, 45.0.3, 45.0.4, 45.0.5)
ERROR: No matching distribution found for cryptography==41.0.7]: [This snippet lists all available versions of the cryptography library in the remote repository and points out that the requested version is not present in the remote repository.]


Answer: Issue: The `cryptography` package was not present in the remote repository, and therefore it could not have been installed.
Resolution: Upload the cryptography package to the remote repository or change the requirement in the package definition to match a version that is present in the remote repository.
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
  pip._vendor.urllib3.exceptions.ReadTimeoutError: HTTPSConnectionPool(host='repository.engineering.redhat.com', port=443): Read timed out.

Answer: This snippet shows that the build is using a custom repository instead of the standard upstream pypi.org.
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
ERROR: Could not find a version that satisfies the requirement cryptography==41.0.7 (from versions: 0.1, 0.2, 0.2.1, 0.2.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.5.1, 0.5.2, 0.5.3, 0.5.4, 0.6, 0.6.1, 0.7, 0.7.1, 0.7.2, 0.8, 0.8.1, 0.8.2, 0.9, 0.9.1, 0.9.2, 0.9.3, 1.0, 1.0.1, 1.0.2, 1.1, 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.2, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.3, 1.3.1, 1.3.2, 1.3.3, 1.3.4, 1.4, 1.5, 1.5.1, 1.5.2, 1.5.3, 1.6, 1.7, 1.7.1, 1.7.2, 1.8, 1.8.1, 1.8.2, 1.9, 2.0, 2.0.1, 2.0.2, 2.0.3, 2.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.1.4, 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.3, 2.3.1, 2.4, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.5, 2.6, 2.6.1, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.9.1, 2.9.2, 3.0, 3.1, 3.1.1, 3.2, 3.2.1, 3.3, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.4, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.4.3, 3.4.4, 3.4.5, 3.4.6, 3.4.7, 3.4.8, 35.0.0, 36.0.0, 36.0.1, 36.0.2, 37.0.0, 37.0.1, 37.0.2, 37.0.3, 37.0.4, 38.0.0, 38.0.1, 38.0.2, 38.0.3, 38.0.4, 39.0.0, 39.0.1, 39.0.2, 40.0.0, 40.0.1, 40.0.2, 41.0.0, 41.0.1, 41.0.2, 41.0.3, 41.0.4, 41.0.5, 41.0.6, 41.0.7, 42.0.0, 42.0.1, 42.0.2, 42.0.3, 42.0.4, 42.0.5, 42.0.6, 42.0.7, 42.0.8, 43.0.0, 43.0.1, 43.0.3, 44.0.0, 44.0.1, 44.0.2, 44.0.3, 45.0.0, 45.0.1, 45.0.2, 45.0.3, 45.0.4, 45.0.5)
ERROR: No matching distribution found for cryptography==41.0.7

Answer: This snippet lists all available versions of the cryptography library in the remote repository and points out that the requested version is not present in the remote repository.
Given following log snippets, their explanation, and nothing else, explain what failure, if any, occurred during build of this package.

  Snippets are in a format of [X] : [Y], where [X] is a log snippet, and [Y] is the explanation.

  Snippets are delimited with '================'.

  Drawing on information from all snippets, provide a concise explanation of the issue and recommend a solution.

  Explanation of the issue, and recommended solution, should take a handful of sentences.

  Snippets:

  [===============================================================================
Failure: test_self_dump(TestRDocRIDriver):
  </:class_methods/> was expected to be =~
  <"{ancestors:\n" +
  "  {\"Foo\" => [\"Inc\", \"Object\"],\n" +
  "   \"Ambiguous\" => [\"Object\"],\n" +
  "   \"Foo::Bar\" => [\"Object\"],\n" +
  "   \"Foo::Baz\" => [\"Object\"],\n" +
  "   \"Qux\" => [\"Object\"]},\n" +
  " attributes: {\"Foo::Bar\" => [\"attr_accessor attr\"]},\n" +
  " class_methods: {\"Foo::Bar\" => [\"new\"]},\n" +
  " c_class_variables: {},\n" +
  " c_singleton_class_variables: {},\n" +
  " encoding: nil,\n" +
  " instance_methods:\n" +
  "  {\"Foo\" => [\"inherit\", \"override\"],\n" +
  "   \"Foo::Bar\" => [\"attr\", \"blah\", \"bother\"],\n" +
  "   \"Qux\" => [\"aliased\", \"original\"]},\n" +
  " main: nil,\n" +
  " modules: [\"Ambiguous\", \"Ext\", \"Foo\", \"Foo::Bar\", \"Foo::Baz\", \"Inc\", \"Qux\"],\n" +
  " pages: [\"README.rdoc\"],\n" +
  " title: nil}\n">.
/builddir/build/BUILD/rubygem-rdoc-6.4.0-build/rdoc-6.4.0/usr/share/gems/gems/rdoc-6.4.0/test/rdoc/test_rdoc_ri_driver.rb:57:in 'TestRDocRIDriver#test_self_dump'
     54:       RDoc::RI::Driver.dump @store1.cache_path
     55:     end
     56: 
  => 57:     assert_match %r%:class_methods%,    out
     58:     assert_match %r%:modules%,          out
     59:     assert_match %r%:instance_methods%, out
     60:     assert_match %r%:ancestors%,        out
===============================================================================
: (0.009597)]: [Failed test case]
=============
[2225 tests, 4864 assertions, 1 failures, 0 errors, 0 pendings, 0 omissions, 0 notifications
99.9551% passed]: [Test suite result]


Answer: Issue: Failed test case. This is caused by Ruby 3.4 changing formatting of hashes, where JSON syntax is newly used
Resolution: Apply the upstream fix (https://github.com/ruby/rdoc/pull/1187) or update to RDoc 6.8.0+
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
===============================================================================
Failure: test_self_dump(TestRDocRIDriver):
  </:class_methods/> was expected to be =~
  <"{ancestors:\n" +
  "  {\"Foo\" => [\"Inc\", \"Object\"],\n" +
  "   \"Ambiguous\" => [\"Object\"],\n" +
  "   \"Foo::Bar\" => [\"Object\"],\n" +
  "   \"Foo::Baz\" => [\"Object\"],\n" +
  "   \"Qux\" => [\"Object\"]},\n" +
  " attributes: {\"Foo::Bar\" => [\"attr_accessor attr\"]},\n" +
  " class_methods: {\"Foo::Bar\" => [\"new\"]},\n" +
  " c_class_variables: {},\n" +
  " c_singleton_class_variables: {},\n" +
  " encoding: nil,\n" +
  " instance_methods:\n" +
  "  {\"Foo\" => [\"inherit\", \"override\"],\n" +
  "   \"Foo::Bar\" => [\"attr\", \"blah\", \"bother\"],\n" +
  "   \"Qux\" => [\"aliased\", \"original\"]},\n" +
  " main: nil,\n" +
  " modules: [\"Ambiguous\", \"Ext\", \"Foo\", \"Foo::Bar\", \"Foo::Baz\", \"Inc\", \"Qux\"],\n" +
  " pages: [\"README.rdoc\"],\n" +
  " title: nil}\n">.
/builddir/build/BUILD/rubygem-rdoc-6.4.0-build/rdoc-6.4.0/usr/share/gems/gems/rdoc-6.4.0/test/rdoc/test_rdoc_ri_driver.rb:57:in 'TestRDocRIDriver#test_self_dump'
     54:       RDoc::RI::Driver.dump @store1.cache_path
     55:     end
     56: 
  => 57:     assert_match %r%:class_methods%,    out
     58:     assert_match %r%:modules%,          out
     59:     assert_match %r%:instance_methods%, out
     60:     assert_match %r%:ancestors%,        out
===============================================================================
: (0.009597)

Answer: Failed test case
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
2225 tests, 4864 assertions, 1 failures, 0 errors, 0 pendings, 0 omissions, 0 notifications
99.9551% passed

Answer: Test suite result
Given following log snippets, their explanation, and nothing else, explain what failure, if any, occurred during build of this package.

  Snippets are in a format of [X] : [Y], where [X] is a log snippet, and [Y] is the explanation.

  Snippets are delimited with '================'.

  Drawing on information from all snippets, provide a concise explanation of the issue and recommend a solution.

  Explanation of the issue, and recommended solution, should take a handful of sentences.

  Snippets:

  [/home/abuild/rpmbuild/BUILD/opencv-qt6-4.11.0-build/opencv-4.11.0/modules/dnn/include/opencv2/dnn/dnn.inl.hpp:377:21,]: [This snippet suggests strong evidence that the build failure used in the openSUSE Build Service (OBS) for building RPM packages]
=============
[[  452s] /home/abuild/rpmbuild/BUILD/opencv-qt6-4.11.0-build/opencv-4.11.0/modules/core/include/opencv2/core/utility.hpp:1096:15: warning: argument 1 value ‘18446744073709551615’ exceeds maximum object size 9223372036854775807 [-Walloc-size-larger-than=]
[  452s]  1096 |         ptr = new _Tp[_size];]: [This snippet, repeated multiple times but originating from this specific location (and similar ones in other DNN-related files), highlights the core issue. It shows a warning at a specific line (utility.hpp:1096) where a new allocation is being attempted with an extremely large size. The -Walloc-size-larger-than= flag clearly indicates the nature of the problem. This tells a developer to look at the code leading up to this allocation in opencv2/core/utility.hpp and the calling functions within the DNN module (like caffe_importer.cpp, onnx_importer.cpp, etc.) to understand why such a large size is being requested.]


Answer: Issue: we find that the build failure is due to the OpenCV DNN module attempting to allocate extremely large memory blocks, as indicated by the numerous -Walloc-size-larger-than= warnings. Although reported as warnings, these caused a critical error during the build process, leading to the make command exiting with an error code.
Resolution: To fix this, we would need to investigate the parts of the OpenCV DNN code where these large allocations are being attempted. The logic would need to be handled.