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: 

=================================== FAILURES ===================================
_______________________ test_installed_ctor_w_dist_info ________________________

    def test_installed_ctor_w_dist_info():
        from packaging import version
        import wheel
    
        installed = _make_installed('wheel')
    
        assert(installed.package == wheel)
        assert(installed.package_name == 'wheel')
    
        # See: https://bugs.launchpad.net/pkginfo/+bug/2090840
        installed_version = version.Version(installed.version)
        if installed_version < version.Version('0.44.dev0'):
            assert(installed.metadata_version == '2.1')
        else:
>           assert(installed.metadata_version == '2.3')
E           AssertionError: assert '2.4' == '2.3'
E             
E             - 2.3
E             + 2.4

pkginfo/tests/test_installed.py:145: AssertionError
=========================== short test summary info ============================
FAILED pkginfo/tests/test_installed.py::test_installed_ctor_w_dist_info - Ass...
======================== 1 failed, 198 passed in 0.54s =========================

Answer: The test expects metadata of version 2.3.
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: 'python3dist(numpy) = 1.23.2']: [Package 'python3dist(numpy) = 1.23.2' was not found in repositories.]
=============
[
WARNING: DNF command failed, retrying, attempt #3, sleeping 1]: [Final DNF attempt to obtain required packages.]


Answer: Issue: Required packages are not available in installed repositories.
Resolution: Ensure that all required packages are available during build.
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
No matching package to install: 'python3dist(numpy) = 1.23.2'

Answer: Package 'python3dist(numpy) = 1.23.2' was not found in repositories.
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 

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

Answer: Final DNF attempt to obtain required packages.
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 src/built_coefficients.rs.rej]: [The patching of the built_coefficients.rs has failed.]
=============
[+ /usr/lib/rpm/rpmuncompress /builddir/build/SOURCES/0001-Fix-test-build-on-i686.patch]: [This is the file that triggered the failure while patching.]


Answer: Issue: The patching of the built_coefficients.rs has failed, this is most likely because the file that was about to be patched was updated in the place it was about to be patched so the original file of the patch no longer matches it or the patch contains a mistake.
Resolution: Review the patch and the file about to be patched, ensure the file about to be patched was not changed in the place that is being patched after the patch was created, ensure the patch file is in the correct format and does not contain any mistakes.
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 src/built_coefficients.rs.rej

Answer: The patching of the built_coefficients.rs has 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: 
+ /usr/lib/rpm/rpmuncompress /builddir/build/SOURCES/0001-Fix-test-build-on-i686.patch

Answer: This is the file that triggered the failure while patching.
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 (python3dist(botocore) &lt; 1.39~~ with python3dist(botocore) &gt;= 1.38.1)
 Problem 2: package python3-s3transfer-0.12.0-1.fc43.noarch from http_kojipkgs_fedoraproject_org_repos_rawhide_latest_basearch requires python(abi) = 3.13, but none of the providers can be installed
  - installed package python3-devel-3.14.0~a7-1.fc43.x86_64 conflicts with python3 &lt; 3.14.0~a7-1.fc43 provided by python3-3.13.3-1.fc43.i686 from fedora
  - installed package python3-devel-3.14.0~a7-1.fc43.x86_64 conflicts with python3 &lt; 3.14.0~a7-1.fc43 provided by python3-3.13.3-1.fc43.x86_64 from fedora
  - installed package python3-devel-3.14.0~a7-1.fc43.x86_64 conflicts with python3 &lt; 3.14.0~a7-1.fc43 provided by python3-3.13.3-1.fc43.x86_64 from http_kojipkgs_fedoraproject_org_repos_rawhide_latest_basearch
  - cannot install the best candidate for the job]: [python3dist(botocore) is not available in the specified versions (lower than 1.39 and greater or equal to 1.38.1) in the repository.
python3-s3transfer is only available in a version built with Python 3.13 and requires ABI of that version (python(abi) = 3.13), but it can't be used in an environment with Python 3.14.]


Answer: Issue: The build failed because there are no compatible package versions in the repository.
Resolution: Ensure python3-botocore and python3-s3transfer are in the correct versions and built with the correct Python version (3.14), before attempting to build this package again.
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 (python3dist(botocore) &lt; 1.39~~ with python3dist(botocore) &gt;= 1.38.1)
 Problem 2: package python3-s3transfer-0.12.0-1.fc43.noarch from http_kojipkgs_fedoraproject_org_repos_rawhide_latest_basearch requires python(abi) = 3.13, but none of the providers can be installed
  - installed package python3-devel-3.14.0~a7-1.fc43.x86_64 conflicts with python3 &lt; 3.14.0~a7-1.fc43 provided by python3-3.13.3-1.fc43.i686 from fedora
  - installed package python3-devel-3.14.0~a7-1.fc43.x86_64 conflicts with python3 &lt; 3.14.0~a7-1.fc43 provided by python3-3.13.3-1.fc43.x86_64 from fedora
  - installed package python3-devel-3.14.0~a7-1.fc43.x86_64 conflicts with python3 &lt; 3.14.0~a7-1.fc43 provided by python3-3.13.3-1.fc43.x86_64 from http_kojipkgs_fedoraproject_org_repos_rawhide_latest_basearch
  - cannot install the best candidate for the job

Answer: python3dist(botocore) is not available in the specified versions (lower than 1.39 and greater or equal to 1.38.1) in the repository.
python3-s3transfer is only available in a version built with Python 3.13 and requires ABI of that version (python(abi) = 3.13), but it can't be used in an environment with Python 3.14.
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:

  [cmds.c:1055:11: error: ‘bool’ cannot be used here
 1055 | onoff(int bool)
      |           ^~~~
cmds.c:1055:11: note: ‘bool’ is a keyword with ‘-std=c23’ onwards
cmds.c: In function ‘onoff’:
cmds.c:1057:21: error: expected ‘)’ before ‘?’ token
 1057 |         return (bool ? "on" : "off");
      |                ~    ^~
      |                     )
cmds.c:1057:37: error: expected expression before ‘;’ token
 1057 |         return (bool ? "on" : "off");
      |                                     ^]: [The snippet shows an error when building with the new GCC15.]


Answer: Issue: In GCC15, 'bool' is a keyword and can't be used as a variable name anymore.
Resolution: Rename the variable to something else.
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: 
cmds.c:1055:11: error: ‘bool’ cannot be used here
 1055 | onoff(int bool)
      |           ^~~~
cmds.c:1055:11: note: ‘bool’ is a keyword with ‘-std=c23’ onwards
cmds.c: In function ‘onoff’:
cmds.c:1057:21: error: expected ‘)’ before ‘?’ token
 1057 |         return (bool ? "on" : "off");
      |                ~    ^~
      |                     )
cmds.c:1057:37: error: expected expression before ‘;’ token
 1057 |         return (bool ? "on" : "off");
      |                                     ^

Answer: The snippet shows an error when building with the new GCC15.
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
DEBUG util.py:461:   gcc-toolset-13-libatomic-devel   x86_64  13.3.1-2.3.el9

Answer: possible info for debugging this issue locally
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:

  [Package rsync-3.2.3-20.el9_5.1.x86_64 is already installed.
Package tar-2:1.34-7.el9.x86_64 is already installed.
Package gettext-0.21-8.el9.x86_64 is already installed.
No match for argument: bind9.1-utils
Package groff-base-1.22.4-10.el9.x86_64 is already installed.
Error: Unable to find a match: bind9.1-utils
Error: building at STEP "RUN INSTALL_PKGS="policycoreutils rsync tar gettext hostname bind9.1-utils groff-base ${NAME}-server" &&     yum install -y --setopt=tsflags=nodocs ${INSTALL_PKGS} &&     rpm -V ${INSTALL_PKGS} &&     /usr/libexec/mysqld -V | grep -qe "${MYSQL_VERSION}\." && echo "Found VERSION ${MYSQL_VERSION}" &&     yum -y clean all --enablerepo='*' &&     mkdir -p ${HOME}/data && chown -R mysql.0 ${HOME} &&     test "$(id mysql)" = "uid=27(mysql) gid=27(mysql) groups=27(mysql)"": while running runtime: exit status 1
errexit on line 33, common/build.sh
errexit on line 33, common/build.sh
errexit on line 41, common/build.sh
errexit on line 42, common/build.sh
errexit on line 61, common/build.sh
errexit on line 61, common/build.sh
make[1]: *** [common/common.mk:87: 10.5] Error 1]: [The package bind9.1-utils installation failed]


Answer: Issue: The build failed because of package 'bind-9.1-utils' does not exist
Resolution: Please specify the proper name in Dockerfile that exists in compose or in the corresponding RHEL 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: 
Package rsync-3.2.3-20.el9_5.1.x86_64 is already installed.
Package tar-2:1.34-7.el9.x86_64 is already installed.
Package gettext-0.21-8.el9.x86_64 is already installed.
No match for argument: bind9.1-utils
Package groff-base-1.22.4-10.el9.x86_64 is already installed.
Error: Unable to find a match: bind9.1-utils
Error: building at STEP "RUN INSTALL_PKGS="policycoreutils rsync tar gettext hostname bind9.1-utils groff-base ${NAME}-server" &&     yum install -y --setopt=tsflags=nodocs ${INSTALL_PKGS} &&     rpm -V ${INSTALL_PKGS} &&     /usr/libexec/mysqld -V | grep -qe "${MYSQL_VERSION}\." && echo "Found VERSION ${MYSQL_VERSION}" &&     yum -y clean all --enablerepo='*' &&     mkdir -p ${HOME}/data && chown -R mysql.0 ${HOME} &&     test "$(id mysql)" = "uid=27(mysql) gid=27(mysql) groups=27(mysql)"": while running runtime: exit status 1
errexit on line 33, common/build.sh
errexit on line 33, common/build.sh
errexit on line 41, common/build.sh
errexit on line 42, common/build.sh
errexit on line 61, common/build.sh
errexit on line 61, common/build.sh
make[1]: *** [common/common.mk:87: 10.5] Error 1

Answer: The package bind9.1-utils installation 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:

  [Unknown argument "builddep" for command "dnf5". Add "--help" for more information about the arguments.
It could be a command provided by a plugin, try: dnf5 install 'dnf5-command(builddep)']: [Unknown argument was given to the package manager DNF.]


Answer: Issue: DNF was called with argument it did not recognize, causing failure of the build while pulling dependencies.
Resolution: Ensure the all CLI commands and utilities are called with arguments they recognize before starting the build. The `builddep` is a plugin, which has to be installed first, before dnf itself can recognize and use it.
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: 
Unknown argument "builddep" for command "dnf5". Add "--help" for more information about the arguments.
It could be a command provided by a plugin, try: dnf5 install 'dnf5-command(builddep)'

Answer: Unknown argument was given to the package manager DNF.
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.FxjQPA: line 43: cd: httpd-2.4.64: No such file or directory
RPM build errors:
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.FxjQPA (%prep)
    Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.FxjQPA (%prep)
]: [It show where the issue occurred. ]


Answer: Issue: The build failed because the Source tarball didn't contain httpd-2.4.64 directory. 
Resolution: Check the upstream tarball if it contains proper directory structure with component and version name and if it is not, create a new and correct 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: 
/var/tmp/rpm-tmp.FxjQPA: line 43: cd: httpd-2.4.64: No such file or directory
RPM build errors:
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.FxjQPA (%prep)
    Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.FxjQPA (%prep)


Answer: It show where the issue occurred.
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.xml]: [bulid is using apache ant]
=============
[BUILD FAILED]: [java build failed]


Answer: Issue: ant build failed for unknown reason
Resolution: review logs of apache ant and take appropriate action based on investigation
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.xml

Answer: bulid is using apache ant
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 FAILED

Answer: java build 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:

  [No matching package to install: 'python3-pytest-httpbin']: [This line shows that the build requirement of python3-pytest-httpbin could not be satisfied.]
=============
[No matching package to install: 'python3-pytest-trio']: [This line shows that the build requirement of python3-pytest-trio could not be satisfied.]


Answer: Issue: The package has build requirements on python3-pytest-httpbin and python3-pytest-trio, but these are not available from any of the enabled repos in the build environment.
Resolution: The missing build requirements are available from the EPEL repo, but the build did not have that repo enabled.  Running the build with the EPEL repo enabled will allow the build requirements to be satisfied.
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: 'python3-pytest-httpbin'

Answer: This line shows that the build requirement of python3-pytest-httpbin could not be satisfied.
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: 'python3-pytest-trio'

Answer: This line shows that the build requirement of python3-pytest-trio could not be satisfied.
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 3 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file Cargo.toml.rej
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.oD8j1p (%prep)
    Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.oD8j1p (%prep)]: [Here the build fails because one of the patches could not be applied.]


Answer: Issue: The build failed because 1 hunk patching the file Cargo.toml did not apply to the package source code.
Resolution: To fix this, the patch file needs to be changed to apply to the current package source 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: 
1 out of 3 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file Cargo.toml.rej
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.oD8j1p (%prep)
    Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.oD8j1p (%prep)

Answer: Here the build fails because one of the patches could not be applied.
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:

  [           {'baseurl': 'https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/plautrba/selinux-fedora/fedora-$releasever-$basearch/',
            'id': 'https_download_copr_fedorainfracloud_org_results_plautrba_selinux_fedora_fedora_releasever_basearch',
            'name': 'Additional repo '
                    'https_download_copr_fedorainfracloud_org_results_plautrba_selinux_fedora_fedora_releasever_basearch'}],]: [This part of the task JSON tells you that there's an external (additional) repository used during package build. Copr consumes RPMs from multiple sources, and this one is non-standard.]
=============
[99.86.229.6)
Error: Failed to download metadata for repo 'https_download_copr_fedorainfracloud_org_results_plautrba_selinux_fedora_fedora_releasever_basearch': Cannot download repomd.xml: Cannot download repodata/repomd.xml: All mirrors were tried
ERROR: Exception(/var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/workspace/workdir-x79ufehf/policycoreutils/policycoreutils.spec) Config(fedora-rawhide-x86_64) 0 minutes 25 seconds
INFO: Results and/or logs in: /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results
INFO: Cleaning up build root ('cleanup_on_failure=True')
Start: clean chroot
Finish: clean chroot
ERROR: Command failed: 
 # /usr/bin/systemd-nspawn -q -M 30]: [But since DNF (called by Mock in the background) doesn't see the repository (error 404), it seems that the repository was not specified properly.

Namely, in this case, we are building for `fedora-rawhide-repository` but the repo was specified for `fedora-40-repository`.  Rawhide, at the time of build, was really F40, but Copr doesn't know how to expand `$releasever` to `rawhide`.]


Answer: Issue: Improperly specified external repository.
Resolution: Try to use `$chroot` in your external repository specification, or, if it is an external repo, use `copr://owner/repo`.
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
           {'baseurl': 'https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/plautrba/selinux-fedora/fedora-$releasever-$basearch/',
            'id': 'https_download_copr_fedorainfracloud_org_results_plautrba_selinux_fedora_fedora_releasever_basearch',
            'name': 'Additional repo '
                    'https_download_copr_fedorainfracloud_org_results_plautrba_selinux_fedora_fedora_releasever_basearch'}],

Answer: This part of the task JSON tells you that there's an external (additional) repository used during package build. Copr consumes RPMs from multiple sources, and this one is non-standard.
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: 
99.86.229.6)
Error: Failed to download metadata for repo 'https_download_copr_fedorainfracloud_org_results_plautrba_selinux_fedora_fedora_releasever_basearch': Cannot download repomd.xml: Cannot download repodata/repomd.xml: All mirrors were tried
ERROR: Exception(/var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/workspace/workdir-x79ufehf/policycoreutils/policycoreutils.spec) Config(fedora-rawhide-x86_64) 0 minutes 25 seconds
INFO: Results and/or logs in: /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results
INFO: Cleaning up build root ('cleanup_on_failure=True')
Start: clean chroot
Finish: clean chroot
ERROR: Command failed: 
 # /usr/bin/systemd-nspawn -q -M 30

Answer: But since DNF (called by Mock in the background) doesn't see the repository (error 404), it seems that the repository was not specified properly.

Namely, in this case, we are building for `fedora-rawhide-repository` but the repo was specified for `fedora-40-repository`.  Rawhide, at the time of build, was really F40, but Copr doesn't know how to expand `$releasever` to `rawhide`.
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:    - nothing provides python(abi) = 3.13 needed by python3-sphinxygen-1.0.10-1.fc42.noarch from build
]: [Some build dependency was not satisfied for the build.]


Answer: Issue: Python sphinxgen package is built against python 3.13, but this version of Python is not available any more after a Python rebase to 3.14.
Resolution: Coordinate with sphinxgen maintainers to get it rebuild with Python 3.14.
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:    - nothing provides python(abi) = 3.13 needed by python3-sphinxygen-1.0.10-1.fc42.noarch from build


Answer: Some build dependency was not satisfied for 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:

  [+ xwfb-run -c mutter -- make test
Xwayland failed to start!
RPM build errors:
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.S8x5k9 (%check)
]: [The tests failed.]


Answer: Issue: The tests need a running X11 server and thus are wrapped in xwfb-run tool which is supposed to start Xwayland X11 server. Alas Xwayland failed to start because Xwayland needs a running Wayland compositor and mutter compositor used by this test lost X11 support in mutter-48.3-2.
Resolution: Enable X11 support in mutter package <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2369991>, or use a different compositor, or use pure xvfb-run tool which does not depend on Wayland.
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 -- make test
Xwayland failed to start!
RPM build errors:
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.S8x5k9 (%check)


Answer: The tests 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:

  [Fatal glibc error: CPU lacks ISA 3.00 support (POWER9 or later required)]: [This indicates that Copr has chosen an incompatible PowerPC machine for this build.]


Answer: Issue: Wrong (old) PowerPC machine was used for the build.
Resolution: Contact Copr administrators and ask them to build these kind of builds on Power9+.
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: 
Fatal glibc error: CPU lacks ISA 3.00 support (POWER9 or later required)

Answer: This indicates that Copr has chosen an incompatible PowerPC machine for this 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:

  [Errors during downloading metadata for repository 'baseos':
  - Downloading successful, but checksum doesn't match. Calculated: 221c3afbce56651ea6fd89897b99836e8cee5ccf39fb8aba02c409abe1ee6c55ab1cb9fdec68c286e8382ef8af2198296ec8f6e9955ed0603a77d0e8860a8f52(sha512)  Expected: eefb0737050fec89f88d569a598d92f8ecbde9c65e41c2e1ba6960f70d2770b7dccf57d285c93f568dc6b395dbaadaa16ede1d3cf6bf0e7de86851301d4ce16f(sha512) ]: [Computed checksum of repo doesn't match the expected checksum. ]
=============
[Error: Failed to download metadata for repo 'baseos': Cannot download repomd.xml: Cannot download repodata/repomd.xml: All mirrors were tried]: [Metadata for repo 'baseos' couldn't be downloaded.]


Answer: Issue: Mismatch between expected and actual checksum of the repo caused failure of repo metadata download.
Resolution: Ensure integrity of installed package manager repositories.
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
Errors during downloading metadata for repository 'baseos':
  - Downloading successful, but checksum doesn't match. Calculated: 221c3afbce56651ea6fd89897b99836e8cee5ccf39fb8aba02c409abe1ee6c55ab1cb9fdec68c286e8382ef8af2198296ec8f6e9955ed0603a77d0e8860a8f52(sha512)  Expected: eefb0737050fec89f88d569a598d92f8ecbde9c65e41c2e1ba6960f70d2770b7dccf57d285c93f568dc6b395dbaadaa16ede1d3cf6bf0e7de86851301d4ce16f(sha512) 

Answer: Computed checksum of repo doesn't match the expected checksum.
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 download metadata for repo 'baseos': Cannot download repomd.xml: Cannot download repodata/repomd.xml: All mirrors were tried

Answer: Metadata for repo 'baseos' couldn't be downloaded.
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/BUILDROOT/rpminspect-data-fedora-1.14-1.fc40.noarch/usr/share/doc/rpminspect-data-fedora/AUTHORS.md
]: [File `/usr/share/doc/rpminspect-data-fedora/AUTHORS.md` is not present.]


Answer: Issue: RPM expected file AUTHORS.md to be in-place but it's not. This is an error when this file is defined in the `%files` section.
Resolution: If the file is meant to be there, put it in place during the %install section. Otherwise remove it from %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: 
RPM build errors:
    File not found: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/rpminspect-data-fedora-1.14-1.fc40.noarch/usr/share/doc/rpminspect-data-fedora/AUTHORS.md


Answer: File `/usr/share/doc/rpminspect-data-fedora/AUTHORS.md` is not present.
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: 
{2} os_net_config.tests.test_impl_nmstate.TestNmstateNetConfig.test_sriov_pf_with_nicpart_ovs_user_bridge [0.040661s] ... FAILED
Captured traceback:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Traceback (most recent call last):
      File "/builddir/build/BUILD/os-net-config-17.0.1.dev30/os_net_config/tests/test_impl_nmstate.py", line 1719, in test_sriov_pf_with_nicpart_ovs_user_bridge
    self.assertEqual(yaml.safe_load(exp_bridge_config),
      File "/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/testtools/testcase.py", line 394, in assertEqual
    self.assertThat(observed, matcher, message)
      File "/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/testtools/testcase.py", line 481, in assertThat
    raise mismatch_error
    testtools.matchers._impl.MismatchError: !=:
reference = {'bridge': {'options': {'datapath': 'netdev',
                        'fail-mode': 'standalone',
                        'mcast-snooping-enable': False,
                        'rstp': False,
                        'stp': False},
            'port': [{'link-aggregation': {'mode': 'active-backup',
                                           'ovs-db': {'other_config': {'bond-primary': 'dpdk2'}},
                                           'port': [{'name': 'dpdk2'},
                                                    {'name': 'dpdk3'}]},
                      'name': 'dpdkbond1'},
                     {'name': 'br-bond-p'}]},
 'name': 'br-bond',
 'ovs-db': {'external_ids': {}, 'other_config': {}},
 'state': 'up',
 'type': 'ovs-bridge'}
actual    = {'bridge': {'options': {'datapath': 'netdev',
                        'fail-mode': 'standalone',
                        'mcast-snooping-enable': False,
                        'rstp': False,
                        'stp': False},
            'port': [{'link-aggregation': {'mode': 'active-backup',
                                           'ovs-db': {'other_config': {'bond-primary': 'dpdk2'}},
                                           'port': [{'name': 'dpdk2'},
                                                    {'name': 'dpdk3'}]},
                      'name': 'dpdkbond1'},
                     {'name': 'br-bond-p'}]},
 'name': 'br-bond',
 'ovs-db': {'external_ids': {}, 'other_config': {'mac-table-size': 50000}},
 'state': 'up',
 'type': 'ovs-bridge'}

Answer: Test case os_net_config.tests.test_impl_nmstate.TestNmstateNetConfig.test_sriov_pf_with_nicpart_ovs_user_bridge has failed due to broken assertion on contents of the data structure.
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: 
{2} os_net_config.tests.test_impl_nmstate.TestNmstateNetConfig.test_sriov_pf_with_nicpart_ovs_user_bridge_no_bond [0.027319s] ... FAILED
Captured traceback:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Traceback (most recent call last):
      File "/builddir/build/BUILD/os-net-config-17.0.1.dev30/os_net_config/tests/test_impl_nmstate.py", line 1574, in test_sriov_pf_with_nicpart_ovs_user_bridge_no_bond
    self.assertEqual(yaml.safe_load(exp_bridge_config),
      File "/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/testtools/testcase.py", line 394, in assertEqual
    self.assertThat(observed, matcher, message)
      File "/usr/lib/python3.9/site-packages/testtools/testcase.py", line 481, in assertThat
    raise mismatch_error
    testtools.matchers._impl.MismatchError: !=:
reference = {'bridge': {'options': {'datapath': 'netdev',
                        'fail-mode': 'standalone',
                        'mcast-snooping-enable': False,
                        'rstp': False,
                        'stp': False},
            'port': [{'name': 'dpdk2'}, {'name': 'br-dpdk2-p'}]},
 'name': 'br-dpdk2',
 'ovs-db': {'external_ids': {}, 'other_config': {}},
 'state': 'up',
 'type': 'ovs-bridge'}
actual    = {'bridge': {'options': {'datapath': 'netdev',
                        'fail-mode': 'standalone',
                        'mcast-snooping-enable': False,
                        'rstp': False,
                        'stp': False},
            'port': [{'name': 'dpdk2'}, {'name': 'br-dpdk2-p'}]},
 'name': 'br-dpdk2',
 'ovs-db': {'external_ids': {}, 'other_config': {'mac-table-size': 50000}},
 'state': 'up',
 'type': 'ovs-bridge'}

Answer: Test case {2} os_net_config.tests.test_impl_nmstate.TestNmstateNetConfig.test_sriov_pf_with_nicpart_ovs_user_bridge_no_bond has failed due to broken assertion on contents of the data structure.
Given following log snippets, their explanation, and nothing else, explain what failure, if any, occurred during build of this package.

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

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

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

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

  Snippets:

  [Copr build error: Build failed]: [Final build failure report.]
=============
[= 1 failed, 2288 passed, 16 skipped, 4 deselected, 2 xfailed, 619 warnings in 752.57s (0:12:32) =]: [Multiple unit tests have failed, and several were skipped.]
=============
[/builddir/build/BUILD/nilearn-0.10.3/nilearn/input_data/__init__.py:23: DeprecationWarning: The import path 'nilearn.input_data' is deprecated in version 0.9. Importing from 'nilearn.input_data' will be possible at least until release 0.13.0. Please import from 'nilearn.maskers' instead.]: [Deprecation warning.]
=============
[/usr/lib64/python3.12/site-packages/sklearn/cluster/_kmeans.py:1416: FutureWarning: The default value of `n_init` will change from 10 to 'auto' in 1.4. Set the value of `n_init` explicitly to suppress the warning]: [FutureWarning about incoming parameter default change.]
=============
[
nilearn/decomposition/tests/test_canica.py::test_percentile_range FAIL]: [Unit test failure]


Answer: Issue: Unit tests have failed.
Resolution: Ensure that unit tests pass before build.
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
= 1 failed, 2288 passed, 16 skipped, 4 deselected, 2 xfailed, 619 warnings in 752.57s (0:12:32) =

Answer: Multiple unit tests have failed, and several were skipped.
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: 
/builddir/build/BUILD/nilearn-0.10.3/nilearn/input_data/__init__.py:23: DeprecationWarning: The import path 'nilearn.input_data' is deprecated in version 0.9. Importing from 'nilearn.input_data' will be possible at least until release 0.13.0. Please import from 'nilearn.maskers' instead.

Answer: Deprecation warning.
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/lib64/python3.12/site-packages/sklearn/cluster/_kmeans.py:1416: FutureWarning: The default value of `n_init` will change from 10 to 'auto' in 1.4. Set the value of `n_init` explicitly to suppress the warning

Answer: FutureWarning about incoming parameter default change.
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: 

nilearn/decomposition/tests/test_canica.py::test_percentile_range FAIL

Answer: Unit test 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: 
make[1]: *** [Makefile:747: src/entry.o] Error 1


Answer: 'make' command 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: 
make: *** [Makefile:496: all] Error 2


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

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

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

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

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

  Snippets:

  [error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
   /usr/share/man/uk/man1/apropos.1.gz
   /usr/share/man/uk/man1/lexgrog.1.gz
   /usr/share/man/uk/man1/man-recode.1.gz
   /usr/share/man/uk/man1/man.1.gz
   /usr/share/man/uk/man1/manconv.1.gz
   /usr/share/man/uk/man1/manpath.1.gz
   /usr/share/man/uk/man1/whatis.1.gz
   /usr/share/man/uk/man1/zsoelim.1.gz
   /usr/share/man/uk/man5/manpath.5.gz
   /usr/share/man/uk/man8/accessdb.8.gz
   /usr/share/man/uk/man8/catman.8.gz
   /usr/share/man/uk/man8/mandb.8.gz
    Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
   /usr/share/man/uk/man1/apropos.1.gz
   /usr/share/man/uk/man1/lexgrog.1.gz
   /usr/share/man/uk/man1/man-recode.1.gz
   /usr/share/man/uk/man1/man.1.gz
   /usr/share/man/uk/man1/manconv.1.gz
   /usr/share/man/uk/man1/manpath.1.gz
   /usr/share/man/uk/man1/whatis.1.gz
   /usr/share/man/uk/man1/zsoelim.1.gz
   /usr/share/man/uk/man5/manpath.5.gz
   /usr/share/man/uk/man8/accessdb.8.gz
   /usr/share/man/uk/man8/catman.8.gz
   /usr/share/man/uk/man8/mandb.8.gz]: [There are unpackaged files in this RPM]


Answer: Issue: This particular version brought the Ukrainian language translations to the manual pages, which have to be packaged.
Resolution: Adding these files using the `%lang` directive in the %files section, which will add these translations to the correct path
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/share/man/uk/man1/apropos.1.gz
   /usr/share/man/uk/man1/lexgrog.1.gz
   /usr/share/man/uk/man1/man-recode.1.gz
   /usr/share/man/uk/man1/man.1.gz
   /usr/share/man/uk/man1/manconv.1.gz
   /usr/share/man/uk/man1/manpath.1.gz
   /usr/share/man/uk/man1/whatis.1.gz
   /usr/share/man/uk/man1/zsoelim.1.gz
   /usr/share/man/uk/man5/manpath.5.gz
   /usr/share/man/uk/man8/accessdb.8.gz
   /usr/share/man/uk/man8/catman.8.gz
   /usr/share/man/uk/man8/mandb.8.gz
    Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
   /usr/share/man/uk/man1/apropos.1.gz
   /usr/share/man/uk/man1/lexgrog.1.gz
   /usr/share/man/uk/man1/man-recode.1.gz
   /usr/share/man/uk/man1/man.1.gz
   /usr/share/man/uk/man1/manconv.1.gz
   /usr/share/man/uk/man1/manpath.1.gz
   /usr/share/man/uk/man1/whatis.1.gz
   /usr/share/man/uk/man1/zsoelim.1.gz
   /usr/share/man/uk/man5/manpath.5.gz
   /usr/share/man/uk/man8/accessdb.8.gz
   /usr/share/man/uk/man8/catman.8.gz
   /usr/share/man/uk/man8/mandb.8.gz

Answer: There are unpackaged files in this RPM
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: 'duktape-devel']: [Package `duktape-devel` was not found.]
=============
[No matching package to install: 'libnice-devel']: [Package `libnice-devel` was not found.]
=============
[No matching package to install: 'paho-c-devel']: [Package `paho-c-devel` was not found.]
=============
[No matching package to install: 'usrsctp-devel']: [Package `usrsctp-devel` was not found.]
=============
[Error: Some packages could not be found.]: [Error indicating that the package manager couldn't find certain requested packages.]


Answer: Issue: Four packages needed for the package build were not found by the package manager.
Resolution: Ensure that all dependencies are available at build time. Verify version constraints against list of available packages.
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: 'duktape-devel'

Answer: Package `duktape-devel` was 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: 
No matching package to install: 'libnice-devel'

Answer: Package `libnice-devel` was 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: 
No matching package to install: 'paho-c-devel'

Answer: Package `paho-c-devel` was not found.