fedora-copr/log_detective_qna huggingface dataset:
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.2uGqIu (%build)
    Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.2uGqIu (%build)


Answer: The build failed in %build phase
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:

  [Problem: cannot install the best candidate for the job
  - nothing provides nim-srpm-macros needed by redhat-rpm-config-178-1.fc34.noarch from copr_xxmitsu_llvm_priority_10
]: [nim-srpm-macros is needed by redhat-rpm-config-178-1.fc34.noarch but is not available from source]
=============
[You can try to add to command line:
  --no-best to not limit the transaction to the best candidates
  --skip-broken to skip uninstallable packages]: [--no-best and --skip-broken are probable workarounds but their usage is not optimal]


Answer: Issue: dnf5 command fails since nim-srpm-macros is not avaialble
Resolution: Build nim-srpm-macros from source if not available using the build terminal
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: 
Problem: cannot install the best candidate for the job
  - nothing provides nim-srpm-macros needed by redhat-rpm-config-178-1.fc34.noarch from copr_xxmitsu_llvm_priority_10


Answer: nim-srpm-macros is needed by redhat-rpm-config-178-1.fc34.noarch but is not available from source
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: 
You can try to add to command line:
  --no-best to not limit the transaction to the best candidates
  --skip-broken to skip uninstallable packages

Answer: --no-best and --skip-broken are probable workarounds but their usage is not optimal
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:

  [../build_cli.sh: line 87: rustup: command not found]: [This is why build exited. Log indicates that there was an attempt to set alias rustup=rustup-init but did not work for some reason]
=============
[+ alias rustup=rustup-init]: [This alias did not apply properly, or got discarded later]


Answer: Issue: rustup package has rustup-init binary name therefore exits with 'command not found'
Resolution: Instead of calling 'rustup target add' try 'rustup-init target add'
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: 
../build_cli.sh: line 87: rustup: command not found

Answer: This is why build exited. Log indicates that there was an attempt to set alias rustup=rustup-init but did not work for some reason
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: 
+ alias rustup=rustup-init

Answer: This alias did not apply properly, or got discarded later
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:

  [
  - nothing provides python(abi) = 3.11 needed by python3-transaction-3.1.0-1.fc39.noar]: ['python3-transaction' requires Python 3.11.]
=============
[
  - nothing provides python(abi) = 3.10 needed by python3-pyramid_beaker-0.8-1.fc36.noar]: [python3-pyramit_beaker requires Python 3.10]


Answer: Issue: Dependencies require Python 3.10 or Python 3.11, but this system has Python 3.12.
Resolution: Correct the Python requirements of the dependencies.
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: 

  - nothing provides python(abi) = 3.11 needed by python3-transaction-3.1.0-1.fc39.noar

Answer: 'python3-transaction' requires Python 3.11.
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: 

  - nothing provides python(abi) = 3.10 needed by python3-pyramid_beaker-0.8-1.fc36.noar

Answer: python3-pyramit_beaker requires Python 3.10
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:

  [gcc -D_GNU_SOURCE -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I.. -I.   -Wall  -Wno-sequence-point -Wno-parentheses -Wpointer-arith -O2  -fomit-frame-pointer -fstrength-reduce -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables -O2 -flto=auto -ffat-lto-objects -fexceptions -g -grecord-gcc-switches -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-U_FORTIFY_SOURCE,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=3 -Wp,-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 -fstack-protector-strong -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1  -m64 -march=x86-64 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fstack-clash-protection -fcf-protection -mtls-dialect=gnu2 -fno-omit-frame-pointer -mno-omit-leaf-frame-pointer  -mpopcnt  -c a1-l.s.c
a1-l.s.c: In function ‘beta_call’:
a1-l.s.c:171:21: error: expected identifier or ‘(’ before ‘true’
  171 |                 int true;
      |                     ^~~~
a1-l.s.c:178:22: error: lvalue required as left operand of assignment
  178 |                 true = link_data->variable.type;
      |                      ^
]: [This is a compilation error.]


Answer: Issue: GCC 15 compiler default to C 23 language where "true" is keyword. No variable can have a name same as a keyword.
Resolution: Rename the variable, or switch a compilation mode to an older language version, e.g. with -std=c99 option.
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: 
gcc -D_GNU_SOURCE -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I.. -I.   -Wall  -Wno-sequence-point -Wno-parentheses -Wpointer-arith -O2  -fomit-frame-pointer -fstrength-reduce -fno-asynchronous-unwind-tables -O2 -flto=auto -ffat-lto-objects -fexceptions -g -grecord-gcc-switches -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-U_FORTIFY_SOURCE,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=3 -Wp,-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 -fstack-protector-strong -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1  -m64 -march=x86-64 -mtune=generic -fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fstack-clash-protection -fcf-protection -mtls-dialect=gnu2 -fno-omit-frame-pointer -mno-omit-leaf-frame-pointer  -mpopcnt  -c a1-l.s.c
a1-l.s.c: In function ‘beta_call’:
a1-l.s.c:171:21: error: expected identifier or ‘(’ before ‘true’
  171 |                 int true;
      |                     ^~~~
a1-l.s.c:178:22: error: lvalue required as left operand of assignment
  178 |                 true = link_data->variable.type;
      |                      ^


Answer: This is a compilation error.
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 'pytest']: [The module pytest not found.]
=============
[error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.o59js0 (%check)]: [The build failed with exit code.]


Answer: Issue: There is the missing module pytest.
Resolution: Provide module pytest.
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 'pytest'

Answer: The module pytest not found.
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.o59js0 (%check)

Answer: The build failed with exit code.
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:

  [Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/rubygem-rails-7.0.8.6-1.el9.x86_64


RPM build errors:
error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
   /usr/share/gems/gems/rails-7.0.8.6/MIT-LICENSE
    Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
   /usr/share/gems/gems/rails-7.0.8.6/MIT-LICENSE
]: [This is check at the end of rpmbuild that failed and as a consequence failed the whole build.]


Answer: Issue: During %install phase you or some script installed MIT-LICENSE file to %{buildroot} directory. But this file is neither listed in %files section nor excluded in %files section.
Resolution: This file seems to be important and you should include it in final %files section. Put there:

%files
%license %{gem_instdir}/MIT-LICENSE

Alternatively it may be good idea to move the license file to %{gem_docdir} and use this path in %files 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: 
Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/rubygem-rails-7.0.8.6-1.el9.x86_64


RPM build errors:
error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
   /usr/share/gems/gems/rails-7.0.8.6/MIT-LICENSE
    Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
   /usr/share/gems/gems/rails-7.0.8.6/MIT-LICENSE


Answer: This is check at the end of rpmbuild that failed and as a consequence failed the whole 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:

  [gpg: CRC error; 2212D2 - 5EB0E8
gpgverify: Decoding the keyring failed.]: [This is the cause of the error: gpgverify was unable to decode the provided keyring.]
=============
[+ /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/gpgverify --keyring=/home/vmihalko/fedora/file/christoskey.asc --signature=/home/vmihalko/fedora/file/file-5.46.tar.gz.asc --data=/home/vmihalko/fedora/file/file-5.46.tar.gz
]: [Location and name of the provided GPG keyring.]


Answer: Issue: The build failed because GPG was unable to decode the provided keyring.
Resolution: Check if the provided keyring is updated and correct.
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: 
gpg: CRC error; 2212D2 - 5EB0E8
gpgverify: Decoding the keyring failed.

Answer: This is the cause of the error: gpgverify was unable to decode the provided keyring.
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/lib/rpm/redhat/gpgverify --keyring=/home/vmihalko/fedora/file/christoskey.asc --signature=/home/vmihalko/fedora/file/file-5.46.tar.gz.asc --data=/home/vmihalko/fedora/file/file-5.46.tar.gz


Answer: Location and name of the provided GPG keyring.
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: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
   /usr/bin/XTandemAdapter
   /usr/include/tdl/ToolInfo.h
   /usr/include/tdl/convertToCTD.h
   /usr/include/tdl/convertToCWL.h
   /usr/include/tdl/cwl_v1_2.h
   /usr/include/tdl/tdl.h
   /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/XTandemAdapter-3.2.0-1.fc42.x86_64.debug
   /usr/lib64/cmake/tdl/tdl-config-version.cmake
   /usr/lib64/cmake/tdl/tdl-config.cmake
   /usr/share/doc/tdl/LICENSES/Apache-2.0.txt
   /usr/share/doc/tdl/LICENSES/BSD-3-Clause.txt
   /usr/share/doc/tdl/LICENSES/CC-BY-4.0.txt
   /usr/share/doc/tdl/LICENSES/CC0-1.0.txt
   /usr/share/doc/tdl/README.md]: [rpmbuild lists files that are meant to be installed but are not packaged]


Answer: Issue: There are files installed in the buildroot that will be installed in the target system. These files are not listed in the %files section which breaks the final build.
Resolution: Include those files in %files section as needed or remove them in the %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: 
error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
   /usr/bin/XTandemAdapter
   /usr/include/tdl/ToolInfo.h
   /usr/include/tdl/convertToCTD.h
   /usr/include/tdl/convertToCWL.h
   /usr/include/tdl/cwl_v1_2.h
   /usr/include/tdl/tdl.h
   /usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/XTandemAdapter-3.2.0-1.fc42.x86_64.debug
   /usr/lib64/cmake/tdl/tdl-config-version.cmake
   /usr/lib64/cmake/tdl/tdl-config.cmake
   /usr/share/doc/tdl/LICENSES/Apache-2.0.txt
   /usr/share/doc/tdl/LICENSES/BSD-3-Clause.txt
   /usr/share/doc/tdl/LICENSES/CC-BY-4.0.txt
   /usr/share/doc/tdl/LICENSES/CC0-1.0.txt
   /usr/share/doc/tdl/README.md

Answer: rpmbuild lists files that are meant to be installed but are not packaged
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:

  [1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file runtime/src/CMakeLists.txt.rej]: [This specific error indicates a failure during the patching process of the CMakeLists.txt file within the runtime/src directory.]


Answer: Issue: Possible Causes for the Patch Failure:
Incorrect Patch: The patch file itself may be corrupt or incompatible with the current source code.
Source Code Modifications: Changes made to the source code since the patch was created may have introduced conflicts.
Patching Tool Configuration: The patch command's configuration or options may not be suitable for this specific patch.
Resolution: Examine the Rejects File:
Open the runtime/src/CMakeLists.txt.rej file and carefully review the differences highlighted in the file.
Compare the original and patched versions of the CMakeLists.txt file to identify the specific conflict.
Review the Patch:

Ensure that the patch file is correct and up-to-date.
Verify that the patch is intended for the current version of the source code.
Check Source Code Modifications:

If the source code has been modified, consider reverting the changes or adjusting the patch to accommodate the modifications.
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: 
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file runtime/src/CMakeLists.txt.rej

Answer: This specific error indicates a failure during the patching process of the CMakeLists.txt file within the runtime/src directory.
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:

  [File "/usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/specfile/spec_parser.py", line 235, in get_rpm_spec
    raise RPMException(stderr=stderr) from e
specfile.exceptions.RPMException: line 42: Unclosed %if]: [This is the exception from the specfile Python library, which parses the specfile.]


Answer: Issue: Because the %if section has no corresponding %endif
Resolution: Add an %endif section after the %if
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 "/usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/specfile/spec_parser.py", line 235, in get_rpm_spec
    raise RPMException(stderr=stderr) from e
specfile.exceptions.RPMException: line 42: Unclosed %if

Answer: This is the exception from the specfile Python library, which parses the specfile.
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:

  [Running transaction test
Error: Transaction test error:
  file /usr/lib/rpm/fileattrs/sysusers.attr from install of systemd-rpm-macros-253.14-1.fc38.noarch conflicts with file from package rpm-build-4.18.91-3.fc38.x86_64]: [DNF executed by Mock is trying to check whether the package build dependencies are installable.  It appears that `rpm-build` and `systemd-rpm-macros` conflict with each other on `sysusers.attr` file (both packages provide the same package but with different content).]
=============
[
 rpm-build                   x86_64 4.18.91-3.fc38              copr_base  69]: [Note that `rpm-build` is installed from `copr_base` directory, not from Fedora default repositories.  It means that the `rp-build` package is "overwritten" by the Copr repository, and is non-default.  The fact that the Copr author overwrites this low-level utility looks suspicious and is likely guilty for the transaction failure.]


Answer: Issue: Likely because the repository provides broken `rpm-build` package, and thus Mock failed to install all the needed dependencies.
Resolution: Fix `rpm-build` package or `systemd-rpm-macros`, but likely the former.
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: 
Running transaction test
Error: Transaction test error:
  file /usr/lib/rpm/fileattrs/sysusers.attr from install of systemd-rpm-macros-253.14-1.fc38.noarch conflicts with file from package rpm-build-4.18.91-3.fc38.x86_64

Answer: DNF executed by Mock is trying to check whether the package build dependencies are installable.  It appears that `rpm-build` and `systemd-rpm-macros` conflict with each other on `sysusers.attr` file (both packages provide the same package but with different content).
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                   x86_64 4.18.91-3.fc38              copr_base  69

Answer: Note that `rpm-build` is installed from `copr_base` directory, not from Fedora default repositories.  It means that the `rp-build` package is "overwritten" by the Copr repository, and is non-default.  The fact that the Copr author overwrites this low-level utility looks suspicious and is likely guilty for the transaction 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: 
python3-devel          x86_64 3.14.0~a6-1.fc43 copr_base

Answer: This snippet shows which Python version for development was installed into the buildroot and from what repository. It is version 3.14.0~a6-1.fc43, to which we can refer to as 3.14, from copr 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: 
___________ test_inspect_integer_with_methods_python38_and_python39 ____________

Answer: Name of the failed test is often accompanied by a series of underscores before and after the test name.
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: 
    @skip_py310
    @skip_py311
    @skip_py312
    @skip_py313

Answer: These are the decorators of the test function. Without looking at their implementation, we can fairly guess their meaning: the test is not meant to run on python 3.10, 3.11, 3.12, 3.13. It probably tests features specific for Pythons older than 3.10.
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: 
    def test_inspect_integer_with_methods_python38_and_python39():
        expected = (
            "â­ââââââââââââââââ <class 'int'> ââââââââââââââââââ®\n"
            "â int([x]) -> integer                            â\n"
            "â int(x, base=10) -> integer                     â\n"
            "â                                                â\n"
            "â      denominator = 1                           â\n"
            "â             imag = 0                           â\n"
            "â        numerator = 1                           â\n"
            "â             real = 1                           â\n"
            "â as_integer_ratio = def as_integer_ratio():     â\n"
            "â                    Return integer ratio.       â\n"
            "â       bit_length = def bit_length(): Number of â\n"
            "â                    bits necessary to represent â\n"
            "â                    self in binary.             â\n"
            "â        conjugate = def conjugate(...) Returns  â\n"
            "â                    self, the complex conjugate â\n"
            "â                    of any int.                 â\n"
            "â       from_bytes = def from_bytes(bytes,       â\n"
            "â                    byteorder, *,               â\n"
            "â                    signed=False): Return the   â\n"
            "â                    integer represented by the  â\n"
            "â                    given array of bytes.       â\n"
            "â         to_bytes = def to_bytes(length,        â\n"
            "â                    byteorder, *,               â\n"
            "â                    signed=False): Return an    â\n"
            "â                    array of bytes representing â\n"
            "â                    an integer.                 â\n"
            "â°âââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ¯\n"
        )

Answer: This is the test body, containing the function header (the line starting with def and ending with a colon (:)). It contains the expected output of the test function. When running the relevant code, this is how the output should look like.
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: 
>       assert render(1, methods=True) == expected

Answer: This line starts with an arrow (>). This indicates the line on which the test problem starts. The test calls a function called render with arguments (1, methods=True) and asserts that what it generated matches literally the output stored in variable "expected". Because there's an arrow at the beginning of the line, we know this assertion was not evaluated to True. The test 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: 
E         - â        conjugate = def conjugate(...) Returns  â
E         ?                                    ---
E         + â        conjugate = def conjugate(): Returns    â
E         ?                                     +          ++

Answer: That's another error diff line. The actual output misses the "...". The actual output contains an additional colon and two spaces. There's a mismatch of the lines contents.
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: 
E         - â                    byteorder, *,               â
E         ?                                            ------
E         + â                    byteorder='big', *,         â
E         ?                               ++++++

Answer: Another error diff line. The actual output misses 6 space characters, because it added 6 other: ='big' (indicated by the + symbols underneath).
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: 
E         + â       is_integer = def is_integer(): Returns   â
E         + â                    True. Exists for duck type  â
E         + â                    compatibility with          â
E         + â                    float.is_integer.           â

Answer: This is another error diff snippet. The lines are in the actual output, but not in the expected one. This is indicated by the + characters prepending the lines. There is no matching lines prepended with -, which means the lines were only added, not somehow changed, comparing to the expected output.
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: 
tests/test_inspect.py:252: AssertionError

Answer: This line contains the failed test file path (tests/test_inspect.py), the line on which error happened (252) and the type of error: AssertionError
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: 
_______________________________ test_inline_code _______________________________

    def test_inline_code():
        markdown = Markdown(
            "inline `import this` code",
            inline_code_lexer="python",
            inline_code_theme="emacs",
        )
        result = render(markdown)
        expected = "inline \x1b[1;38;2;170;34;255;48;2;248;248;248mimport\x1b[0m\x1b[38;2;0;0;0;48;2;248;248;248m \x1b[0m\x1b[1;38;2;0;0;255;48;2;248;248;248mthis\x1b[0m code                                                                             \n"
        print(result)
        print(repr(result))
>       assert result == expected
E       AssertionError: assert 'inline \x1b[1;38;2;170;34;255;48;2;248;248;248mimport\x1b[0m\x1b[38;2;187;187;187;48;2;248;248;248m \x1b[0m\x1b[1;38;2;0;0;255;48;2;248;248;248mthis\x1b[0m code                                                                             \n' == 'inline \x1b[1;38;2;170;34;255;48;2;248;248;248mimport\x1b[0m\x1b[38;2;0;0;0;48;2;248;248;248m \x1b[0m\x1b[1;38;2;0;0;255;48;2;248;248;248mthis\x1b[0m code                                                                             \n'
E         
E         - inline import this code                                                                             
E         ?                                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
E         + inline import this code                                                                             
E         ?                                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

tests/test_markdown.py:116: AssertionError

Answer: test_inline_code failed with AssertionError because of a differing number of whitespace characters behind the import line (there are 6 more). This test doesn't contain any decorators telling to skip the test with any Python version.
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: 
______________________________ test_attrs_broken _______________________________

    @skip_py310
    @skip_py311
    @skip_py312
    @skip_py313
    def test_attrs_broken() -> None:
        @attr.define
        class Foo:
            bar: int
    
        foo = Foo(1)
        del foo.bar
        result = pretty_repr(foo)
        print(repr(result))
        expected = "Foo(bar=AttributeError('bar'))"
>       assert result == expected
E       assert 'Foo(\n    bar=AttributeError("\'tests.test_pretty.test_attrs_broken.<locals>.Foo\' object has no attribute \'bar\'")\n)' == "Foo(bar=AttributeError('bar'))"
E         
E         - Foo(bar=AttributeError('bar'))
E         + Foo(
E         +     bar=AttributeError("'tests.test_pretty.test_attrs_broken.<locals>.Foo' object has no attribute 'bar'")
E         + )

tests/test_pretty.py:652: AssertionError

Answer: test_attrs_broken fails with AssertionError because the actual result doesn't match the expected one. The test is skipped on pythons 3.10, 3.11, 3.12, 3.13.
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: 
=========== 8 failed, 847 passed, 20 skipped, 1 deselected in 4.63s ============

Answer: 8 tests of the package test suite failed. The build failed because the test run was not successful.
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.NbLFbP (%check)

Answer: Tests are the part of the %check section of the rpm build. The tests failed, ergo the %check section was the one where the build failure happened.
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: 
INFO: Cleaning up build root ('cleanup_on_failure=True')

Answer: The last indicator of the failed build ('cleanup_on_failure=True')
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:

  [/var/tmp/rpm-tmp.n8lCM0: line 55: curl: command not found
]: [Curl is not present on system - missing dependency for curl]
=============
[/var/tmp/rpm-tmp.n8lCM0: line 56: /builddir/.cargo/env: No such file or directory
]: [Due to missing curl, rustup was not installed so rust/cargo is missing on system]


Answer: Issue: Rust is not correctly installed due to failure to find curl on system
Resolution: Add curl to build dependencies
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: 
/var/tmp/rpm-tmp.n8lCM0: line 55: curl: command not found


Answer: Curl is not present on system - missing dependency for curl
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: 
/var/tmp/rpm-tmp.n8lCM0: line 56: /builddir/.cargo/env: No such file or directory


Answer: Due to missing curl, rustup was not installed so rust/cargo is missing on system
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:

  [tests/test_40_sigver.py::TestSecurity::test_sign_assertion FAILED        [ 60%]
tests/test_40_sigver.py::TestSecurity::test_multiple_signatures_assertion FAILED [ 60%]
tests/test_40_sigver.py::TestSecurity::test_multiple_signatures_response FAILED [ 60%]
tests/test_40_sigver.py::TestSecurity::test_sign_response FAILED         [ 60%]
tests/test_40_sigver.py::TestSecurity::test_sign_response_2 FAILED       [ 60%]
tests/test_40_sigver.py::TestSecurity::test_sign_verify FAILED           [ 61%]
tests/test_40_sigver.py::TestSecurity::test_sign_verify_with_cert_from_instance FAILED [ 61%]
tests/test_40_sigver.py::TestSecurity::test_sign_verify_assertion_with_cert_from_instance FAILED [ 61%]
tests/test_40_sigver.py::TestSecurity::test_exception_sign_verify_with_cert_from_instance FAILED [ 61%]]: [Reported failed test]
=============
[        except XmlsecError as e:
>           raise SignatureError(com_list) from e
E           saml2.sigver.SignatureError: ['/usr/bin/xmlsec1', '--sign', '--privkey-pem', '/builddir/build/BUILD/python-pysaml2-7.4.2-build/pysaml2-7.4.2/tests/test.key', '--id-attr:ID', 'urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:assertion:Assertion', '--node-id', 'id-C3IKYwqLFUszZ41Im', '--output', '/tmp/tmpqq77n_lo.xml', '/tmp/tmpb5tp38y5.xml']
../BUILDROOT/usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/saml2/sigver.py:798: SignatureError]: [an external command, which is needed to prepare data for test, failure
This failure was caught and reported as a test failure]


Answer: Issue: running 
'/usr/bin/xmlsec1', '--sign', '--privkey-pem', '/builddir/build/BUILD/python-pysaml2-7.4.2-build/pysaml2-7.4.2/tests/test.key', '--id-attr:ID', 'urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:assertion:Assertion', '--node-id', 'id-C3IKYwqLFUszZ41Im', '--output', '/tmp/tmpqq77n_lo.xml', '/tmp/tmpb5tp38y5.xml'
failed
Resolution: Not clear from the log, investigate why the command encrypting XML file 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: 
tests/test_40_sigver.py::TestSecurity::test_sign_assertion FAILED        [ 60%]
tests/test_40_sigver.py::TestSecurity::test_multiple_signatures_assertion FAILED [ 60%]
tests/test_40_sigver.py::TestSecurity::test_multiple_signatures_response FAILED [ 60%]
tests/test_40_sigver.py::TestSecurity::test_sign_response FAILED         [ 60%]
tests/test_40_sigver.py::TestSecurity::test_sign_response_2 FAILED       [ 60%]
tests/test_40_sigver.py::TestSecurity::test_sign_verify FAILED           [ 61%]
tests/test_40_sigver.py::TestSecurity::test_sign_verify_with_cert_from_instance FAILED [ 61%]
tests/test_40_sigver.py::TestSecurity::test_sign_verify_assertion_with_cert_from_instance FAILED [ 61%]
tests/test_40_sigver.py::TestSecurity::test_exception_sign_verify_with_cert_from_instance FAILED [ 61%]

Answer: Reported 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: 
        except XmlsecError as e:
>           raise SignatureError(com_list) from e
E           saml2.sigver.SignatureError: ['/usr/bin/xmlsec1', '--sign', '--privkey-pem', '/builddir/build/BUILD/python-pysaml2-7.4.2-build/pysaml2-7.4.2/tests/test.key', '--id-attr:ID', 'urn:oasis:names:tc:SAML:2.0:assertion:Assertion', '--node-id', 'id-C3IKYwqLFUszZ41Im', '--output', '/tmp/tmpqq77n_lo.xml', '/tmp/tmpb5tp38y5.xml']
../BUILDROOT/usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/saml2/sigver.py:798: SignatureError

Answer: an external command, which is needed to prepare data for test, failure
This failure was caught and reported as a test 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:

  [/usr/bin/strip: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/transifex-client-1.6.10-1.fc41.x86_64/usr/bin/tx(__.PKGDEF): Unable to recognise the format of file: file format not recognized
/usr/bin/strip: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/transifex-client-1.6.10-1.fc41.x86_64/usr/bin/tx(_go_.o): Unable to recognise the format of file: file format not recognized]: [Shows that the created binary is not correct.]
=============
[error: Empty %files file /builddir/build/BUILD/cli-1.6.10/debugsourcefiles.list]: [Shows that no binary is part of the debugsourcefiles.list]


Answer: Issue: Binary build paths are not correct.

%gobuild -o %{gobuilddir}/bin/tx %{goipath}/cmd/tx

For this package it should be:

%gobuild -o %{gobuilddir}/bin/tx %{goipath}
Resolution: Fix the %gobuild paths with:

%gobuild -o %{gobuilddir}/bin/tx %{goipath}
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/strip: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/transifex-client-1.6.10-1.fc41.x86_64/usr/bin/tx(__.PKGDEF): Unable to recognise the format of file: file format not recognized
/usr/bin/strip: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/transifex-client-1.6.10-1.fc41.x86_64/usr/bin/tx(_go_.o): Unable to recognise the format of file: file format not recognized

Answer: Shows that the created binary is not correct.
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: Empty %files file /builddir/build/BUILD/cli-1.6.10/debugsourcefiles.list

Answer: Shows that no binary is part of the debugsourcefiles.list
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:

  [+ xwfb-run -c mutter -w 10 -- /usr/bin/meson compile -C redhat-linux-build -j 80 --verbose
Xwayland failed to start!]: [It shows that the issue is with starting a mutter session which is used for running tests. It precisely shows that xwfb-run failed at launching mutter due to a Xwayland issue. This coincides with the recent changes in mutter that disable x11 support.]


Answer: Issue: mutter is now built without x11 support, while the xwfb-run tool expects Xwayland session (which mutter runs under Xwayland)
Resolution: Build mutter with XWayland support.
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: 
+ xwfb-run -c mutter -w 10 -- /usr/bin/meson compile -C redhat-linux-build -j 80 --verbose
Xwayland failed to start!

Answer: It shows that the issue is with starting a mutter session which is used for running tests. It precisely shows that xwfb-run failed at launching mutter due to a Xwayland issue. This coincides with the recent changes in mutter that disable x11 support.
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:

  [UUlib.xs:240:13: error: too many arguments to function ‘UUGetOption’; expected 0, have 4
  240 |             UUGetOption (opt, 0, cval, sizeof cval);
      |             ^~~~~~~~~~~  ~~~]: [word error]


Answer: Issue: Because changes of gcc to C23 standard, which forbid different number of arguments
Resolution: Fix the code
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: 
UUlib.xs:240:13: error: too many arguments to function ‘UUGetOption’; expected 0, have 4
  240 |             UUGetOption (opt, 0, cval, sizeof cval);
      |             ^~~~~~~~~~~  ~~~

Answer: word error
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 matching package to install: 'libnghttp2-devel >= 1.61.0'
Package make-1:4.3-8.el9.x86_64 is already installed.
No matching package to install: 'libuv-devel >= 1:1.46.0'
Not all dependencies satisfied
Error: Some packages could not be found.
Finish: build setup for nodejs-20.19.1-1.el9.src.rpm
Finish: build phase for nodejs-20.19.1-1.el9.src.rpm
ERROR: Exception(/home/aradchen/centos/rpms/nodejs/nodejs-20.19.1-1.el9.src.rpm) Config(c9s-candidate-x86_64) 1 minutes 47 seconds]: [This is why its exited]


Answer: Issue: Some packages are bundled, so can not be sources from anywhere
Resolution: Use build --with=bundled
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 matching package to install: 'libnghttp2-devel >= 1.61.0'
Package make-1:4.3-8.el9.x86_64 is already installed.
No matching package to install: 'libuv-devel >= 1:1.46.0'
Not all dependencies satisfied
Error: Some packages could not be found.
Finish: build setup for nodejs-20.19.1-1.el9.src.rpm
Finish: build phase for nodejs-20.19.1-1.el9.src.rpm
ERROR: Exception(/home/aradchen/centos/rpms/nodejs/nodejs-20.19.1-1.el9.src.rpm) Config(c9s-candidate-x86_64) 1 minutes 47 seconds

Answer: This is why its exited