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:

  [
RPM build errors:
    File not found: /builddir/build/BUILD/dracut-105-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib/dracut/modules.d/05busybox
    File not found: /builddir/build/BUILD/dracut-105-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib/dracut/modules.d/90systemd-cryptsetup]: [Missing file error.]


Answer: Issue: The files are missing on system, but are required in the spec file.
Resolution: Remove the respective lines from 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: 

RPM build errors:
    File not found: /builddir/build/BUILD/dracut-105-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib/dracut/modules.d/05busybox
    File not found: /builddir/build/BUILD/dracut-105-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib/dracut/modules.d/90systemd-cryptsetup

Answer: Missing file 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:

  [ERROR: Command failed: 
 # /usr/bin/systemd-nspawn -q -M 87dd6d35a40b42c0b5cbfb593996a862 -D /var/lib/mock/make-srpm-method/root -a -u mockbuild --drop-capability=CAP_SYS_ADMIN,CAP_IPC_OWNER,CAP_KILL,CAP_LEASE,CAP_LINUX_IMMUTABLE,CAP_NET_BIND_SERVICE,CAP_NET_BROADCAST,CAP_NET_RAW,CAP_SETGID,CAP_SETPCAP,CAP_SETUID,CAP_SYS_CHROOT,CAP_SYS_NICE,CAP_SYS_PTRACE,CAP_SYS_TTY_CONFIG,CAP_SYS_RESOURCE,CAP_SYS_BOOT,CAP_AUDIT_WRITE,CAP_AUDIT_CONTROL --bind=/tmp/mock-resolv.lozk8zao:/etc/resolv.conf --bind=/dev/btrfs-control --bind=/dev/mapper/control --bind=/dev/fuse --bind=/dev/loop-control --bind=/dev/loop0 --bind=/dev/loop1 --bind=/dev/loop2 --bind=/dev/loop3 --bind=/dev/loop4 --bind=/dev/loop5 --bind=/dev/loop6 --bind=/dev/loop7 --bind=/dev/loop8 --bind=/dev/loop9 --bind=/dev/loop10 --bind=/dev/loop11 --console=pipe --setenv=TERM=vt100 --setenv=SHELL=/bin/bash --setenv=HOME=/builddir --setenv=HOSTNAME=mock --setenv=PATH=/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin '--setenv=PROMPT_COMMAND=printf "\033]0;<mock-chroot>\007"' '--setenv=PS1=<mock-chroot> \s-\v\$ ' --setenv=LANG=C.UTF-8 --resolv-conf=off bash --login -c '/usr/bin/rpmbuild -bs  --target aarch64 --nodeps /builddir/build/SPECS/powerdevil.spec']: [A sole error.]


Answer: Issue: idk. Seems like a generic error. In the official spec file I changed only the release tag from 1 to 2.
Resolution: Prepare a SRPM on my own machine and then send it to COPR.
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: Command failed: 
 # /usr/bin/systemd-nspawn -q -M 87dd6d35a40b42c0b5cbfb593996a862 -D /var/lib/mock/make-srpm-method/root -a -u mockbuild --drop-capability=CAP_SYS_ADMIN,CAP_IPC_OWNER,CAP_KILL,CAP_LEASE,CAP_LINUX_IMMUTABLE,CAP_NET_BIND_SERVICE,CAP_NET_BROADCAST,CAP_NET_RAW,CAP_SETGID,CAP_SETPCAP,CAP_SETUID,CAP_SYS_CHROOT,CAP_SYS_NICE,CAP_SYS_PTRACE,CAP_SYS_TTY_CONFIG,CAP_SYS_RESOURCE,CAP_SYS_BOOT,CAP_AUDIT_WRITE,CAP_AUDIT_CONTROL --bind=/tmp/mock-resolv.lozk8zao:/etc/resolv.conf --bind=/dev/btrfs-control --bind=/dev/mapper/control --bind=/dev/fuse --bind=/dev/loop-control --bind=/dev/loop0 --bind=/dev/loop1 --bind=/dev/loop2 --bind=/dev/loop3 --bind=/dev/loop4 --bind=/dev/loop5 --bind=/dev/loop6 --bind=/dev/loop7 --bind=/dev/loop8 --bind=/dev/loop9 --bind=/dev/loop10 --bind=/dev/loop11 --console=pipe --setenv=TERM=vt100 --setenv=SHELL=/bin/bash --setenv=HOME=/builddir --setenv=HOSTNAME=mock --setenv=PATH=/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin '--setenv=PROMPT_COMMAND=printf "\033]0;<mock-chroot>\007"' '--setenv=PS1=<mock-chroot> \s-\v\$ ' --setenv=LANG=C.UTF-8 --resolv-conf=off bash --login -c '/usr/bin/rpmbuild -bs  --target aarch64 --nodeps /builddir/build/SPECS/powerdevil.spec'

Answer: A sole error.
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: 
make: *** [Makefile:272: pgtclId.o] Error 1

Answer: Makefile error
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: 
pgtcl.c:88:50: error: ‘Pg_select’ undeclared (first use in this function)
   88 |                                                  Pg_select,
      |                                                  ^~~~~~~~~
pgtcl.c:94:50: error: ‘Pg_result’ undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean ‘pg_result’?
   94 |                                                  Pg_result,
      |                                                  ^~~~~~~~~
      |                                                  pg_result

Answer: detailed 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:

  [Failed to resolve the transaction:
No match for argument: java-17-openjdk-devel]: [Listing of packages that are required for build but could not be installed.]


Answer: Issue: A dependency listed in BuildRequires is not available for installation.
Resolution: Find the configuration of the build environment. Either make sure the missing package is available or update the BuildRequires field to install the package available.
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: 
Failed to resolve the transaction:
No match for argument: java-17-openjdk-devel

Answer: Listing of packages that are required for build but could 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:

  [+ /usr/bin/python3 /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/ocaml_files.py /builddir/build/BUILD/ocaml-ocp-indent-1.8.2-build/BUILDROOT /usr/lib64/ocaml
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/lib64/python3.14/argparse.py", line 1747, in _check_help
    formatter._expand_help(action)
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^^^^^^^^
  File "/usr/lib64/python3.14/argparse.py", line 678, in _expand_help
    return help_string % params
           ~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~
TypeError: must be real number, not dict
The above exception was the direct cause of the following exception:
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/ocaml_files.py", line 429, in <module>
    parser.add_argument('-i', '--install',
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                        action='store_true',
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                        default=False,
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                        help='install files instead of generating %files')
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/usr/lib64/python3.14/argparse.py", line 1561, in add_argument
    self._check_help(action)
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^^^^^^^^
  File "/usr/lib64/python3.14/argparse.py", line 1749, in _check_help
    raise ValueError('badly formed help string') from exc
ValueError: badly formed help string]: [argparse is having issues processing "help='install files instead of generating %files')" help line.]


Answer: Issue: ocaml_files.py script is using invalid format string in argparse and that is causing traceback.
Resolution: '%files' string have to be escape for python to know we want literal %files in help text. Use '%' to do so. (help='install files instead of generating %%files')
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/python3 /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/ocaml_files.py /builddir/build/BUILD/ocaml-ocp-indent-1.8.2-build/BUILDROOT /usr/lib64/ocaml
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/lib64/python3.14/argparse.py", line 1747, in _check_help
    formatter._expand_help(action)
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^^^^^^^^
  File "/usr/lib64/python3.14/argparse.py", line 678, in _expand_help
    return help_string % params
           ~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~
TypeError: must be real number, not dict
The above exception was the direct cause of the following exception:
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/ocaml_files.py", line 429, in <module>
    parser.add_argument('-i', '--install',
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                        action='store_true',
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                        default=False,
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                        help='install files instead of generating %files')
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  File "/usr/lib64/python3.14/argparse.py", line 1561, in add_argument
    self._check_help(action)
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^^^^^^^^
  File "/usr/lib64/python3.14/argparse.py", line 1749, in _check_help
    raise ValueError('badly formed help string') from exc
ValueError: badly formed help string

Answer: argparse is having issues processing "help='install files instead of generating %files')" help line.
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:459:  error: Bad source: /chroot_tmpdir/srpm_unpacked/SOURCES/libsndfile-1.2.3.tar.xz: No such file or directory
]: [rpmbuild complains about missing source file]


Answer: Issue: Spec file was updated to new upstream realease, but new tarball has not been uploaded
Resolution: Upload new source tarball
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:459:  error: Bad source: /chroot_tmpdir/srpm_unpacked/SOURCES/libsndfile-1.2.3.tar.xz: No such file or directory


Answer: rpmbuild complains about missing source file
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: python3dist(ansible-compat) >= 4.1.]: [Requirement `: python3dist(ansible-compat) >= 4.1.11` cannot be fulfilled. It means there is no package in the repositories with this version.]


Answer: Issue: Build dependencies for this package cannot be installed.
Resolution: Change dependencies of your package if the package is available in a different version.

If you require this particular version, work with the maintainer of ansible-compat to build the required version of the package.
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: python3dist(ansible-compat) >= 4.1.

Answer: Requirement `: python3dist(ansible-compat) >= 4.1.11` cannot be fulfilled. It means there is no package in the repositories with this version.
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:

  [Failed to resolve the transaction:
No match for argument: python3-mrtparse
You can try to add to command line:
  --skip-unavailable to skip unavailable packages]: [Error message about a missing dependency]


Answer: Issue: The specified dependency is missing in the target distribution.
Resolution: You need to package the missing dependency first.
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: 
Failed to resolve the transaction:
No match for argument: python3-mrtparse
You can try to add to command line:
  --skip-unavailable to skip unavailable packages

Answer: Error message about a 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:

  [In file included from ./include/uapi/linux/posix_types.h:5,
                 from ./include/uapi/linux/types.h:14,
                 from ./include/linux/types.h:6,
                 from ./include/linux/kasan-checks.h:5,
                 from ./include/asm-generic/rwonce.h:26,
                 from ./arch/x86/include/generated/asm/rwonce.h:1,
                 from ./include/linux/compiler.h:314,
                 from ./include/linux/build_bug.h:5,
                 from ./include/linux/init.h:5,
                 from ./include/linux/efi.h:15,
                 from drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/efi-stub-helper.c:12:
./include/linux/stddef.h:11:9: error: cannot use keyword âfalseâ as enumeration constant
   11 |         false   = 0,
      |         ^~~~~
./include/linux/stddef.h:11:9: note: âfalseâ is a keyword with â-std=c23â onwards]: [The code is not C23 compliant. The keyword 'false' is used in enumeration as a constant.]
=============
[./include/linux/types.h:35:33: error: âboolâ cannot be defined via âtypedefâ
   35 | typedef _Bool                   bool;
      |                                 ^~~~
./include/linux/types.h:35:33: note: âboolâ is a keyword with â-std=c23â onwards]: [The code is not C23 compliant. The keyword 'bool' is used in enumeration as a constant.]


Answer: Issue: Because the code is not C23 compliant and should be updated. 
Resolution: The code should be updated for C23. A words "bool", "true" and or "false" becomes a keyword so it can not be used as a constant now.
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: 
In file included from ./include/uapi/linux/posix_types.h:5,
                 from ./include/uapi/linux/types.h:14,
                 from ./include/linux/types.h:6,
                 from ./include/linux/kasan-checks.h:5,
                 from ./include/asm-generic/rwonce.h:26,
                 from ./arch/x86/include/generated/asm/rwonce.h:1,
                 from ./include/linux/compiler.h:314,
                 from ./include/linux/build_bug.h:5,
                 from ./include/linux/init.h:5,
                 from ./include/linux/efi.h:15,
                 from drivers/firmware/efi/libstub/efi-stub-helper.c:12:
./include/linux/stddef.h:11:9: error: cannot use keyword âfalseâ as enumeration constant
   11 |         false   = 0,
      |         ^~~~~
./include/linux/stddef.h:11:9: note: âfalseâ is a keyword with â-std=c23â onwards

Answer: The code is not C23 compliant. The keyword 'false' is used in enumeration as a constant.
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: 
./include/linux/types.h:35:33: error: âboolâ cannot be defined via âtypedefâ
   35 | typedef _Bool                   bool;
      |                                 ^~~~
./include/linux/types.h:35:33: note: âboolâ is a keyword with â-std=c23â onwards

Answer: The code is not C23 compliant. The keyword 'bool' is used in enumeration as a constant.
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 1: nothing provides requested (crate(which/default) >= 8.0.0 with crate(which/default) < 9.0.0~)]: [This line describes the first dependency problem: crate(which/default) must be at least version 8.0.0, but less than version 9.0.0.]
=============
[Problem 2: nothing provides requested (crate(which/regex) >= 8.0.0 with crate(which/regex) < 9.0.0~)]: [This line describes the second dependency problem: crate(which/regex) must be at least version 8.0.0, but less than version 9.0.0.]


Answer: Issue: Two of the build requirements cannot be resolved.  They are both available in the buildroot, but have a lower version than the required range.
Resolution: Update the dependencies to versions that match the specified 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: 
Problem 1: nothing provides requested (crate(which/default) >= 8.0.0 with crate(which/default) < 9.0.0~)

Answer: This line describes the first dependency problem: crate(which/default) must be at least version 8.0.0, but less than version 9.0.0.
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: 
Problem 2: nothing provides requested (crate(which/regex) >= 8.0.0 with crate(which/regex) < 9.0.0~)

Answer: This line describes the second dependency problem: crate(which/regex) must be at least version 8.0.0, but less than version 9.0.0.
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:

  [[ERROR] Failed to execute goal on project lucene-expressions: Could not resolve dependencies for project org.apache.lucene:lucene-expressions:jar:10.2.0
[ERROR] dependency: org.antlr:antlr4-runtime:jar:4.13.2 (compile)]: [Maven could not resolve a compile dependency specified in the POM file.]


Answer: Issue: A compile dependency is missing for the build.
Resolution: If the compile dependency is necessary for the build and is available in Fedora, add it to the list of BuildRequires. Otherwise patch the project and remove the usage of the dependency.
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] Failed to execute goal on project lucene-expressions: Could not resolve dependencies for project org.apache.lucene:lucene-expressions:jar:10.2.0
[ERROR] dependency: org.antlr:antlr4-runtime:jar:4.13.2 (compile)

Answer: Maven could not resolve a compile dependency specified in the POM file.
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:

  [Installing html docs for target KF6WidgetsAddons
cd /builddir/build/BUILD/kf6-kwidgetsaddons-6.15.0-build/kwidgetsaddons-6.15.0/redhat-linux-build/src && /usr/bin/cmake --install /builddir/build/BUILD/kf6-kwidgetsaddons-6.15.0-build/kwidgetsaddons-6.15.0/redhat-linux-build --component _install_html_docs_KF6WidgetsAddons
-- Install configuration: "release"
-- Installing: /usr/share/doc/qt6/kwidgetsaddons
CMake Error at cmake_install.cmake:54 (file):
  file INSTALL cannot make directory "/usr/share/doc/qt6/kwidgetsaddons":
  Permission denied.]: [User doesn't have permissions to install documentation outside of the chrooted environment during the build.]


Answer: Issue: Build failed because documentation for the package cannot be installed into directory.
Resolution: Installation should be done into RPM build root (using %{buildroot}).
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: 
Installing html docs for target KF6WidgetsAddons
cd /builddir/build/BUILD/kf6-kwidgetsaddons-6.15.0-build/kwidgetsaddons-6.15.0/redhat-linux-build/src && /usr/bin/cmake --install /builddir/build/BUILD/kf6-kwidgetsaddons-6.15.0-build/kwidgetsaddons-6.15.0/redhat-linux-build --component _install_html_docs_KF6WidgetsAddons
-- Install configuration: "release"
-- Installing: /usr/share/doc/qt6/kwidgetsaddons
CMake Error at cmake_install.cmake:54 (file):
  file INSTALL cannot make directory "/usr/share/doc/qt6/kwidgetsaddons":
  Permission denied.

Answer: User doesn't have permissions to install documentation outside of the chrooted environment during the 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:

  [DEBUG util.py:459:  No matching package to install: 'autogen'
DEBUG util.py:459:  Not all dependencies satisfied
DEBUG util.py:459:  Error: Some packages could not be found.]: [buildroot installation error]


Answer: Issue: some buildrequire dependencies were not installed as they are not available
Resolution: Drop unavailable buildrequie dependency and update spec file and/or configure script parameters if needed.
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:459:  No matching package to install: 'autogen'
DEBUG util.py:459:  Not all dependencies satisfied
DEBUG util.py:459:  Error: Some packages could not be found.

Answer: buildroot installation 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:

  [Problem 1: nothing provides requested (crate(apple-flat-package/default) >= 0.20.0 with crate(apple-flat-package/default) < 0.21.0~)
 Problem 2: nothing provides requested (crate(debpkg/default) >= 0.6.0 with crate(debpkg/default) < 0.7.0~)
 Problem 3: nothing provides requested (crate(directories/default) >= 6.0.0 with crate(directories/default) < 7.0.0~)
 Problem 4: nothing provides requested (crate(infer/default) >= 0.19.0 with crate(infer/default) < 0.20.0~)
 Problem 5: nothing provides requested (crate(sevenz-rust/default) >= 0.6.1 with crate(sevenz-rust/default) < 0.7.0~)

]: [Nothing provides several packages required in cargo.toml]


Answer: Issue: These packages aren't present as they do not make sense to be universally present. There isn't a device that requires apple-package and debpkg at the same time. Some versions of infer and sevenz-rust might be available, but not in those versions.
Resolution: Remove packages which aren't present in the repository and verify available versions of these cargo packages in fedora rpm.
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 1: nothing provides requested (crate(apple-flat-package/default) >= 0.20.0 with crate(apple-flat-package/default) < 0.21.0~)
 Problem 2: nothing provides requested (crate(debpkg/default) >= 0.6.0 with crate(debpkg/default) < 0.7.0~)
 Problem 3: nothing provides requested (crate(directories/default) >= 6.0.0 with crate(directories/default) < 7.0.0~)
 Problem 4: nothing provides requested (crate(infer/default) >= 0.19.0 with crate(infer/default) < 0.20.0~)
 Problem 5: nothing provides requested (crate(sevenz-rust/default) >= 0.6.1 with crate(sevenz-rust/default) < 0.7.0~)



Answer: Nothing provides several packages required in cargo.toml
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:

  [Scanned 18 directories and 25 files,
               processed 0 inodes,
               0 modified (0 replaced + 0 rewritten),
               0 unsupported format, 0 errors
Reading /builddir/build/BUILD/amprd-3.0.1-build/SPECPARTS/rpm-debuginfo.specpart
Processing files: amprd-3.0.1-9.fc43.x86_64
error: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILD/amprd-3.0.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/bin/amprd
Executing(%doc): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.j2dRhw
+ umask 022
+ cd /builddir/build/BUILD/amprd-3.0.1-build
+ cd amprd-3.0.1
+ DOCDIR=/builddir/build/BUILD/amprd-3.0.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/share/doc/amprd
+ export LC_ALL=C.UTF-8
+ LC_ALL=C.UTF-8
+ export DOCDIR
+ /usr/bin/mkdir -p /builddir/build/BUILD/amprd-3.0.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/share/doc/amprd
+ cp -pr /builddir/build/BUILD/amprd-3.0.1-build/amprd-3.0.1/COPYING /builddir/build/BUILD/amprd-3.0.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/share/doc/amprd
+ cp -pr /builddir/build/BUILD/amprd-3.0.1-build/amprd-3.0.1/README /builddir/build/BUILD/amprd-3.0.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/share/doc/amprd
+ RPM_EC=0
++ jobs -p
+ exit 0
RPM build errors:
    File not found: /builddir/build/BUILD/amprd-3.0.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/bin/amprd]: [The snippet shows the actual build fail.]


Answer: Issue: Wrong /usr/(s)bin path is used in the specfile.
Resolution: override the SBINDIR variable during install:
%install
make %{?_smp_mflags} DESTDIR=%{buildroot} SBINDIR=%{buildroot}%{_sbindir} install
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: 
Scanned 18 directories and 25 files,
               processed 0 inodes,
               0 modified (0 replaced + 0 rewritten),
               0 unsupported format, 0 errors
Reading /builddir/build/BUILD/amprd-3.0.1-build/SPECPARTS/rpm-debuginfo.specpart
Processing files: amprd-3.0.1-9.fc43.x86_64
error: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILD/amprd-3.0.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/bin/amprd
Executing(%doc): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.j2dRhw
+ umask 022
+ cd /builddir/build/BUILD/amprd-3.0.1-build
+ cd amprd-3.0.1
+ DOCDIR=/builddir/build/BUILD/amprd-3.0.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/share/doc/amprd
+ export LC_ALL=C.UTF-8
+ LC_ALL=C.UTF-8
+ export DOCDIR
+ /usr/bin/mkdir -p /builddir/build/BUILD/amprd-3.0.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/share/doc/amprd
+ cp -pr /builddir/build/BUILD/amprd-3.0.1-build/amprd-3.0.1/COPYING /builddir/build/BUILD/amprd-3.0.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/share/doc/amprd
+ cp -pr /builddir/build/BUILD/amprd-3.0.1-build/amprd-3.0.1/README /builddir/build/BUILD/amprd-3.0.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/share/doc/amprd
+ RPM_EC=0
++ jobs -p
+ exit 0
RPM build errors:
    File not found: /builddir/build/BUILD/amprd-3.0.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/bin/amprd

Answer: The snippet shows the actual build 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:

  [File not found: /builddir/build/BUILD/ndppd-0.2.5-build/BUILDROOT/usr/bin/ndppd]: [There is a file listed, but not installed]


Answer: Issue: There was a Fedora change of unification of the /usr/bin and /usr/sbin (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Unify_bin_and_sbin) which is breaking this package, because it installs the files to unexpected folder.
Resolution: Add the `SBINDIR=%{_sbindir}` to the `%make_install` macro
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 not found: /builddir/build/BUILD/ndppd-0.2.5-build/BUILDROOT/usr/bin/ndppd

Answer: There is a file listed, but not 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:

  [ Problem: conflicting requests
  - nothing provides libllhttp.so.9.0()(64bit) needed by python3-aiohttp-3.8.5-1.eln130.aarch64 from buil]: [The `libllhttp.so.9.0` is needed by `python3-aiohttp` package but cannot be installed ]


Answer: Issue: The `libllhttp.so.9.0` library is needed by `python3-aiohttp` package but cannot be installed because it is not available on Fedora ELN
Resolution: The `libllhttp` library should be provided by the `llhttp-devel` package. You will need to build it for Fedora ELN.
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: conflicting requests
  - nothing provides libllhttp.so.9.0()(64bit) needed by python3-aiohttp-3.8.5-1.eln130.aarch64 from buil

Answer: The `libllhttp.so.9.0` is needed by `python3-aiohttp` package but cannot 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:

  [error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.1SspOy (%check)
    Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.1SspOy (%check)
RPM build errors:
Child return code was: 1
]: [The build failed in %check phase.]
=============
[test result: ok. 83 passed; 0 failed; 0 ignored; 0 measured; 0 filtered out; finished in 1.26s
error: 1 target failed:
    `--test ber`]: [The test `ber` failed.]


Answer: Issue: The build failed in %check phase because testsuite failed.
Resolution: You can temporary disable the testsuite or one specific test:

%cargo_test -f bigint,bits,datetime,serialize -- -- --skip from_ber_length_invalid

You need to contact upstream and work with them on fixing the testsuite.
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.1SspOy (%check)
    Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.1SspOy (%check)
RPM build errors:
Child return code was: 1


Answer: The build failed in %check phase.
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 result: ok. 83 passed; 0 failed; 0 ignored; 0 measured; 0 filtered out; finished in 1.26s
error: 1 target failed:
    `--test ber`

Answer: The test `ber` 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:

  [CommonMark.c: In function ‘XS_CommonMark__Node_interface_get_node’:
CommonMark.c:682:18: error: too many arguments to function ‘XSFUNCTION’; expected 0, have 1
  682 |         RETVAL = XSFUNCTION(node);
      |                  ^~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~
]: [Compiling CommonMark.c failed on protype mismatch of XSFUNCTION() function.]


Answer: Issue: GCC 15 moved default C standard to C23 which changed semantics of empty argument list. It used to mean an unspecified arguments, now it means no arguments.
Resolution: Correct XSFUNCTION() function declaration to match the arguments in its definition.
A workaround is requesting the compiler to use older C standard by adding e.g. -std=c99 option to CFLAGS.
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: 
CommonMark.c: In function ‘XS_CommonMark__Node_interface_get_node’:
CommonMark.c:682:18: error: too many arguments to function ‘XSFUNCTION’; expected 0, have 1
  682 |         RETVAL = XSFUNCTION(node);
      |                  ^~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~


Answer: Compiling CommonMark.c failed on protype mismatch of XSFUNCTION() function.
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: 'libfastjson-devel >= 0.99.8'
No matching package to install: 'liblognorm-devel >= 1.0.2'
No matching package to install: 'librelp-devel >= 1.2.1]: [Multiple dependencies aren't available:

1. Package `libfastjson-devel` in version 0.99.8 or higher
2. Package `liblognorm-devel` in version 1.0.2 or higher
3. Package `librelp-devel` in version 1.2.16 or higher]


Answer: Issue: Not all buildtime dependencies could be found
Resolution: There are multiple possible solutions to fix this issue. Pick whichever suits your situation the best.

1. Enable an external repository which provides the missing packages
2. Build the missing packages in the same Copr project. They will then become available when building the `rsyslog` package.
3. Consider whether the dependencies are indeed required, and possibly remove them from the specfile.
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: 'libfastjson-devel >= 0.99.8'
No matching package to install: 'liblognorm-devel >= 1.0.2'
No matching package to install: 'librelp-devel >= 1.2.1

Answer: Multiple dependencies aren't available:

1. Package `libfastjson-devel` in version 0.99.8 or higher
2. Package `liblognorm-devel` in version 1.0.2 or higher
3. Package `librelp-devel` in version 1.2.16 or higher
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:

  [Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
   /usr/include/offload/OffloadAPI.h
   /usr/include/offload/OffloadPrint.hpp
   /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libLLVMOffload.so.20.0pre20241206.g1a896049018254-20.0.0~pre20241206.g1a896049018254-2.el8.s390x.debug
   /usr/lib64/libLLVMOffload.so
   /usr/lib64/libLLVMOffload.so.20.0pre20241206.g1a896049018254
    Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
   /usr/include/offload/OffloadAPI.h
   /usr/include/offload/OffloadPrint.hpp
   /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libLLVMOffload.so.20.0pre20241206.g1a896049018254-20.0.0~pre20241206.g1a896049018254-2.el8.s390x.debug
   /usr/lib64/libLLVMOffload.so
   /usr/lib64/libLLVMOffload.so.20.0pre20241206.g1a896049018254]: [Multiple files were installed but not packaged. Meaning that they were left untracked by the package manager.]


Answer: Issue: Not all files installed by the package were properly tracked in the spec file.
Resolution: Ensure that all files installed by the package are tracked, either by their full paths, or by suitable macro expression.
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: 
Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
   /usr/include/offload/OffloadAPI.h
   /usr/include/offload/OffloadPrint.hpp
   /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libLLVMOffload.so.20.0pre20241206.g1a896049018254-20.0.0~pre20241206.g1a896049018254-2.el8.s390x.debug
   /usr/lib64/libLLVMOffload.so
   /usr/lib64/libLLVMOffload.so.20.0pre20241206.g1a896049018254
    Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
   /usr/include/offload/OffloadAPI.h
   /usr/include/offload/OffloadPrint.hpp
   /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/libLLVMOffload.so.20.0pre20241206.g1a896049018254-20.0.0~pre20241206.g1a896049018254-2.el8.s390x.debug
   /usr/lib64/libLLVMOffload.so
   /usr/lib64/libLLVMOffload.so.20.0pre20241206.g1a896049018254

Answer: Multiple files were installed but not packaged. Meaning that they were left untracked by the package manager.
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:

  [FileNotFoundError: File "setup.py" not found for legacy project.]: [The script searches for "setup.py" but can't find it, resulting in a FileNotFoundError.]


Answer: Issue: The error message indicates your RPM build for the python-castor-extractor package failed because it couldn't find the required build file "setup.py".

The pyproject_buildrequires.py script is used by RPM to generate build dependencies for Python packages.
It tries to determine the build tools required by the package based on pyproject.toml and "setup.py" files.
In this case, the script specifically checks for setuptools version 61.2 or higher (indicated by Handling setuptools>=61.2 from build-system.requires).

Resolution: If using pyproject.toml: Make sure the package uses a pyproject.toml file with the necessary build dependencies specified for setuptools. The pyproject_buildrequires.py script should then handle dependencies automatically.
Legacy packaging with missing "setup.py":
Locate the "setup.py" file within the source code.
Ensure the directory containing "setup.py" is the root of the package being built.
If "setup.py" is genuinely missing, verify if you have the correct source code for the package.
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: 
FileNotFoundError: File "setup.py" not found for legacy project.

Answer: The script searches for "setup.py" but can't find it, resulting in a FileNotFoundError.
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: /builddir/build/SPECS/geos.spec: line 112: Unknown option E in ctest(:-:)
]: [This is the error description relevant to the failed build]


Answer: Issue: Version of ctest doesn't support -E argument
Resolution: Remove the -E argument, or replace with equivalent compatible with the specific 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: 
error: /builddir/build/SPECS/geos.spec: line 112: Unknown option E in ctest(:-:)


Answer: This is the error description relevant to the failed 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:

  [
util-host-info.c:94:31: error: passing argument 1 of âpcre2_substring_list_free_8â from incompatible pointer type [-Wincompatible-pointer-types]
   94 |     pcre2_substring_list_free((PCRE2_SPTR *)list);
      |                               ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      |                               |
      |                               const PCRE2_UCHAR8 ** {aka const unsigned char **}
In file included from suricata-common.h:155,
                 from util-host-info.c:27:
/usr/include/pcre2.h:949:1: note: expected âPCRE2_UCHAR8 **â {aka âunsigned char **â} but argument is of type âconst PCRE2_UCHAR8 **â {aka âconst unsigned char **â}
  949 | PCRE2_TYPES_STRUCTURES_AND_FUNCTIONS
      |]: [This is causing the build to fail, as the make command fails with Error.]


Answer: Issue: Pcre2 new version 10.43 changed the argument in `pcre2_substring_list_free` function from `PCRE2_SPTR *` to `PCRE2_UCHAR8 **`. This means that packages that make use of this function have to port their usage to the new function definition.
Resolution: Change the argument to the function from `PCRE2_SPTR *` to `PCRE2_UCHAR8 **` in the function calls.