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: 
No matching package to install: 'extra-cmake-modules >= 5.248.0'

Answer: DNF reports that `extra-cmake-modules` with version >= 5.248.0 couldn't be found.
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:

  [+ mv /builddir/build/BUILD/cwdaemon-0.12.0-build/BUILDROOT/usr/bin/cwdaemon /builddir/build/BUILD/cwdaemon-0.12.0-build/BUILDROOT/usr/bin/cwdaemon
mv: '/builddir/build/BUILD/cwdaemon-0.12.0-build/BUILDROOT/usr/bin/cwdaemon' and '/builddir/build/BUILD/cwdaemon-0.12.0-build/BUILDROOT/usr/bin/cwdaemon' are the same file
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.OXibzd (%install)]: [Installation of built files failed.]


Answer: Issue: The install script attempts to move a file onto itself. The spec file probably uses %{_sbindir} and %{_bindir} macros which were unified to /usr/bin in Fedora 42 leading to the clash.
Resolution: Adapt the spec file to case when %{_sbindir}  and %{_bindir} equals. See <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Unify_bin_and_sbin> for more details.
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: 
+ mv /builddir/build/BUILD/cwdaemon-0.12.0-build/BUILDROOT/usr/bin/cwdaemon /builddir/build/BUILD/cwdaemon-0.12.0-build/BUILDROOT/usr/bin/cwdaemon
mv: '/builddir/build/BUILD/cwdaemon-0.12.0-build/BUILDROOT/usr/bin/cwdaemon' and '/builddir/build/BUILD/cwdaemon-0.12.0-build/BUILDROOT/usr/bin/cwdaemon' are the same file
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.OXibzd (%install)

Answer: Installation of built files 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: 
=================================== FAILURES ===================================
_________________________________ test_semfree _________________________________

Answer: This is the start of the test failure output. test_semfree 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: 
>       assert exitcode in (ExitCode.ok, ExitCode.pdfa_conversion_failed)
E       assert <ExitCode.other_error: 15> in (<ExitCode.ok: 0>, <ExitCode.pdfa_conversion_failed: 10>)


Answer: Test asserts that the exitcode is either ok or pdfa_conversion_failed. That assertion fails, because the test ended with ExitCode.other_error: 15 which is not in the list of the allowed exitcodes.
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 tests/test_semfree.py::test_semfree - assert <ExitCode.other_error: 15...

Answer: This shows the full path of the failed test
Given following log snippets, their explanation, and nothing else, explain what failure, if any, occurred during build of this package.

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

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

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

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

  Snippets:

  [Problem 1: conflicting requests
  - nothing provides python(abi) = 3.11 needed by python3-nbval-0.9.6-1.fc37.noarch from copr_base
  - nothing provides python3.11dist(pytest) &gt;= 2.8 needed by python3-nbval-0.9.6-1.fc37.noarch from copr_base
  - nothing provides python3.11dist(six) needed by python3-nbval-0.9.6-1.fc37.noarch from copr_base
  - nothing provides python3.11dist(coverage) needed by python3-nbval-0.9.6-1.fc37.noarch from copr_base]: [The packages seem to be unavailable from source,
python(abi) = 3.10, 3.11
python3.11dist(pytest) >= 2.8
python3.11dist(six)
python3.11dist(coverage)
python3.11dist(pyvisa) >= 1.12
python3.11dist(typing-extensions)
]
=============
[Problem 2: conflicting requests
  - nothing provides python(abi) = 3.10 needed by python3-python-ivi-0.14.9-1.fc36.noarch from copr_base]: [The build seems to require python(abi) 3.10 and 3.11, this might be another reason why the future build might fail]


Answer: Issue: 1. Packages unavailable from source as per the required versions
Resolution: Dependencies must be met for the build to complete, can be built from source in necessary
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: conflicting requests
  - nothing provides python(abi) = 3.11 needed by python3-nbval-0.9.6-1.fc37.noarch from copr_base
  - nothing provides python3.11dist(pytest) &gt;= 2.8 needed by python3-nbval-0.9.6-1.fc37.noarch from copr_base
  - nothing provides python3.11dist(six) needed by python3-nbval-0.9.6-1.fc37.noarch from copr_base
  - nothing provides python3.11dist(coverage) needed by python3-nbval-0.9.6-1.fc37.noarch from copr_base

Answer: The packages seem to be unavailable from source,
python(abi) = 3.10, 3.11
python3.11dist(pytest) >= 2.8
python3.11dist(six)
python3.11dist(coverage)
python3.11dist(pyvisa) >= 1.12
python3.11dist(typing-extensions)
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: conflicting requests
  - nothing provides python(abi) = 3.10 needed by python3-python-ivi-0.14.9-1.fc36.noarch from copr_base

Answer: The build seems to require python(abi) 3.10 and 3.11, this might be another reason why the future build might 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:

  [RPM build errors:]: [Error header]
=============
[File must begin with "/": %{_sysusersdir}/testcloud.conf]: [Error message]
=============
[el9]: [Package is being built for EPEL9]


Answer: Issue: Looks like %{_sysusersdir} is not defined
Resolution: Define the macro yourself, possibly in an if statement:	
%if 0%{?rhel} <= 9
%global _sysusersdir /usr/lib/sysusers.d
%endif
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
RPM build errors:

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

Answer: Error message
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
el9

Answer: Package is being built for EPEL9
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:  Failed to resolve the transaction:
DEBUG util.py:459:  Problem: nothing provides requested (php-composer(fzaninotto/faker) >= 1.5 with php-composer(fzaninotto/faker) < 2)
DEBUG util.py:608:  Child return code was: 1
]: [DNF fails to resolve dependency]


Answer: Issue: php-composer(fzaninotto/faker) version >= 1.5and < 2 is not available
Resolution: If fzaninotto/faker is needed at runtime
- the package needs to be adapted to run with available version
- OR required version needs to be added to the repository 
- OR this package be retired

If this package is only required at buildtime, for test suite:
- tests needs to be adapted for version available
- OR relevant unit tests ignored
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:  Failed to resolve the transaction:
DEBUG util.py:459:  Problem: nothing provides requested (php-composer(fzaninotto/faker) >= 1.5 with php-composer(fzaninotto/faker) < 2)
DEBUG util.py:608:  Child return code was: 1


Answer: DNF fails to resolve 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:

  [  !! Copr timeout => sending I]: [This is a sign that Copr build system terminated the build process using SIGINT because the time was out.]
=============
[
Executing(%check): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.Cneu]: [Since `%check` is the last spec section mentioned before the actual failure, it is clear that it is a failure in tests (not %build or %install).]


Answer: Issue: The build of copr-backend package typically finishes relatively quickly, within 10 minutes. The default Fedora Copr timeout, in the year 2024, is by default 5 hours.  Because it timeouted, it seems that the build simply hung.  In this case during the test-suite execution.
Resolution: Fix the test-suite. It probably found a real problem in the package, and it is *very* good it was found at package build-time.
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
  !! Copr timeout => sending I

Answer: This is a sign that Copr build system terminated the build process using SIGINT because the time was out.
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: 

Executing(%check): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.Cneu

Answer: Since `%check` is the last spec section mentioned before the actual failure, it is clear that it is a failure in tests (not %build or %install).
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/sbin/foreman-certs
    absolute symlink: /etc/foreman-installer/scenarios.d/foreman.migrations -> /usr/share/foreman-installer/config/foreman.migrations
    absolute symlink: /usr/share/foreman-installer/config/foreman.migrations/.applied -> /etc/foreman-installer/scenarios.d/foreman-migrations-applied
    absolute symlink: /etc/foreman-installer/scenarios.d/foreman-proxy-content.migrations -> /usr/share/foreman-installer/config/foreman-proxy-content.migrations
    absolute symlink: /etc/foreman-installer/scenarios.d/katello.migrations -> /usr/share/foreman-installer/config/katello.migrations
    absolute symlink: /usr/share/foreman-installer/config/foreman-proxy-content.migrations/.applied -> /etc/foreman-installer/scenarios.d/foreman-proxy-content-migrations-applied
    absolute symlink: /usr/share/foreman-installer/config/katello.migrations/.applied -> /etc/foreman-installer/scenarios.d/katello-migrations-applied
    Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
   /usr/sbin/foreman-certs]: [List of the files that got installed, but are not expected]


Answer: Issue: There are files that were installed with the RPM, but they are not listed in the %files section of the specfile.
Resolution: Fix the list of installed files in 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: 
error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
   /usr/sbin/foreman-certs
    absolute symlink: /etc/foreman-installer/scenarios.d/foreman.migrations -> /usr/share/foreman-installer/config/foreman.migrations
    absolute symlink: /usr/share/foreman-installer/config/foreman.migrations/.applied -> /etc/foreman-installer/scenarios.d/foreman-migrations-applied
    absolute symlink: /etc/foreman-installer/scenarios.d/foreman-proxy-content.migrations -> /usr/share/foreman-installer/config/foreman-proxy-content.migrations
    absolute symlink: /etc/foreman-installer/scenarios.d/katello.migrations -> /usr/share/foreman-installer/config/katello.migrations
    absolute symlink: /usr/share/foreman-installer/config/foreman-proxy-content.migrations/.applied -> /etc/foreman-installer/scenarios.d/foreman-proxy-content-migrations-applied
    absolute symlink: /usr/share/foreman-installer/config/katello.migrations/.applied -> /etc/foreman-installer/scenarios.d/katello-migrations-applied
    Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
   /usr/sbin/foreman-certs

Answer: List of the files that got installed, but are not expected
Given following log snippets, their explanation, and nothing else, explain what failure, if any, occurred during build of this package.

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

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

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

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

  Snippets:

  [autoreconf: error: libtoolize failed with exit status: 2
]: ['autoreconf' tool failed]
=============
[Can't exec "libtoolize": No such file or directory at /usr/share/autoconf/Autom4te/FileUtils.pm line 318.
]: [The 'libtoolize' tool from the called by 'autoreconf' failed to operate on missing file]


Answer: Issue: The 'libtoolize' tool from the called by 'autoreconf' failed to operate on missing file
Resolution: Make sure the file exists or drop your dependencies on it (e.g. in patches etc.)
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: 
autoreconf: error: libtoolize failed with exit status: 2


Answer: 'autoreconf' tool 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: 
Can't exec "libtoolize": No such file or directory at /usr/share/autoconf/Autom4te/FileUtils.pm line 318.


Answer: The 'libtoolize' tool from the called by 'autoreconf' failed to operate on missing 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:

  [[ERROR] Failed to execute goal org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-enforcer-plugin:3.3.0:enforce ]: [maven build failed to execute maven enforcer plugin]
=============
[Failed to create enforcer rules with name: enforceBytecodeVersion or for class: org.apache.maven.plugins.enforcer.EnforceBytecodeVersion]: [maven enforcer plugin can't find rule called Enforce Bytecode Version]


Answer: Issue: build failed because of missing dependency on extra-enforcer-rules
Resolution: add build dependency on extra-enforcer-rules
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 org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-enforcer-plugin:3.3.0:enforce 

Answer: maven build failed to execute maven enforcer plugin
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 create enforcer rules with name: enforceBytecodeVersion or for class: org.apache.maven.plugins.enforcer.EnforceBytecodeVersion

Answer: maven enforcer plugin can't find rule called Enforce Bytecode 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:

  [/builddir/build/BUILD/dispenso-1.2.0/tests/concurrent_vector_test_common.h:1443:1: error: template argument 3 is invali]: [Source code can't be compiled.]


Answer: Issue: Sources could not be compiled.
Resolution: Follow the suggestions and error messages from the compiler and fix the 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: 
/builddir/build/BUILD/dispenso-1.2.0/tests/concurrent_vector_test_common.h:1443:1: error: template argument 3 is invali

Answer: Source code can't be compiled.
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.VD7Tod: line 31: scl: command not fou]: [Explains that the error occured because `scl` command was not found.]


Answer: Issue: `scl` command was not found.
Resolution: Install package containing scl binary
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.VD7Tod: line 31: scl: command not fou

Answer: Explains that the error occured because `scl` command was not found.
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: 
 Problem: package python3-dnf-4.23.0-1.1.noarch from @System conflicts with python3-dnf-plugins-core < 4.7.0 provided by python3-dnf-plugins-core-4.4.4-2.5.noarch from opensuse-tumbleweed-oss
  - cannot install the best candidate for the job
  - conflicting requests]: [This section identifies the error]


Answer: Issue: There is a conflict between the python3-dnf package provided by the base image and the python3-dnf-plugins package that is part of the normal update flow.
Resolution: The problem cannot be fixed by the user. The image maintainer must solve the issue by removing the conflict.
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: 
 Problem: package python3-dnf-4.23.0-1.1.noarch from @System conflicts with python3-dnf-plugins-core < 4.7.0 provided by python3-dnf-plugins-core-4.4.4-2.5.noarch from opensuse-tumbleweed-oss
  - cannot install the best candidate for the job
  - conflicting requests

Answer: This section identifies the 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:

  [go: go.mod requires go >= 1.23.3 (running go 1.22.12; GOTOOLCHAIN=local)]: [Go compiler error explaining that its version is too old for this package.]


Answer: Issue: The buildroot contains a Go toolchain which is too old.
Resolution: Either use a newer Go toolchain in buildroot or lower the requirement after making sure it is possible and safe to do so.
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: 
go: go.mod requires go >= 1.23.3 (running go 1.22.12; GOTOOLCHAIN=local)

Answer: Go compiler error explaining that its version is too old for this package.
Given following log snippets, their explanation, and nothing else, explain what failure, if any, occurred during build of this package.

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

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

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

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

  Snippets:

  [- nothing provides python3.14dist(pydantic-core) = 2.27.2 needed by python3-pydantic-2.10.6-2.fc43.noarch from copr_base]: [This line indicates that the build cannot resolve a transitive dependency.  The spec file has an explicit dependency on python3-pydantic, which in turn has a dependency on python3-pydantic-core.]


Answer: Issue: python3-pydantic has a strict dependency on python3-pydantic-core 2.27.2, which cannot be found.
Resolution: Most likely python3-pydantic-core is available, but just not in the exact version that is needed.  If the version is older, then a quick fix would be to update it to the required version.  However, that could easily break again in the future.  It may be preferable to "un-pin" the dependency, meaning to patch pydantic to allow newer versions of pydantic-core.
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
- nothing provides python3.14dist(pydantic-core) = 2.27.2 needed by python3-pydantic-2.10.6-2.fc43.noarch from copr_base

Answer: This line indicates that the build cannot resolve a transitive dependency.  The spec file has an explicit dependency on python3-pydantic, which in turn has a dependency on python3-pydantic-core.
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:

  [+ for ff in case1 case2 case3
+ '[' '!' -f x86_64.case3 ']'
+ RPM_EC=1
++ jobs -p
+ exit 1
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.LZl7el (%check)
]: [build check phase failed due to poor shell code]


Answer: Issue: command unrelated to test itself leaked non-zero exit status
Resolution: Beware that short version [ test ] check can leak non-zero exit status when it's the last command to run. Rewrite script to use if check format
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: 
+ for ff in case1 case2 case3
+ '[' '!' -f x86_64.case3 ']'
+ RPM_EC=1
++ jobs -p
+ exit 1
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.LZl7el (%check)


Answer: build check phase failed due to poor shell code
Given following log snippets, their explanation, and nothing else, explain what failure, if any, occurred during build of this package.

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

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

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

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

  Snippets:

  [Handling cleo (>=2.1.0,<3.0.0) from hook generated metadata: Requires-Dist (poetry)
Requirement not satisfied: cleo (>=2.1.0,<3.0.0)]: [This part discovers the needed build requirements and checks their status. cleo needs to fit in versions greater or equal 2.1.0 (>=2.1.0) but lower than 3.0.0 (<3.0.0). cleo has not yet been installed into the buildroot]
=============
[Problem: package python3-cleo-2.2.1-1.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~a6-1.fc43.x86_64 conflicts with python3 < 3.14.0~a6-1.fc43 provided by python3-3.13.2-2.fc43.i686 from fedora
  - installed package python3-devel-3.14.0~a6-1.fc43.x86_64 conflicts with python3 < 3.14.0~a6-1.fc43 provided by python3-3.13.2-2.fc43.x86_64 from fedora
  - installed package python3-devel-3.14.0~a6-1.fc43.x86_64 conflicts with python3 < 3.14.0~a6-1.fc43 provided by python3-3.13.2-2.fc43.x86_64 from http_kojipkgs_fedoraproject_org_repos_rawhide_latest_basearch
  - cannot install the best candidate for the job]: [python3-cleo is a built RPM name providing the upstream requirement cleo. There is a version 2.2.1-1 available in koji rawhide repository (http_kojipkgs_fedoraproject_org_repos_rawhide_latest_basearch), but that version requires "python(abi) = 3.13" which is not available in the Copr repository. Python in the Copr repository provides a different version of "python(abi)" which doesn't match the requirement. Dependency resolver tries to find a suitable version (python3-3.13.2-2.fc43.x86_64) which provides "python(abi) = 3.13" but that would conflict with Python version available in Copr (python3-devel-3.14.0~a6-1.fc43.x86_64). That Python version provides most probably "python(abi) = 3.14". This can't be automatically resolved.]


Answer: Issue: The attempt to build poetry fails because there is no matching python3-cleo package that could be installed into the buildroot. python3-cleo requires a lower version of Python ABI than the one that's available in the repository and when it tries to pull that lower version, two Python packages conflict.
Resolution: The right way to fix the issue is to ensure that python3-cleo requires python(abi) = 3.14. That means building python-cleo (this is the component name in Fedora) with Python 3.14 in the same environment, in which we try to build poetry. Such built package will correctly require python(abi) = 3.14 and that requirement can be satisfied by python3-devel-3.14.0~a6-1.fc43.x86_64. Only after python3-cleo with correct requires is available, we can try to build poetry 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: 
Handling cleo (>=2.1.0,<3.0.0) from hook generated metadata: Requires-Dist (poetry)
Requirement not satisfied: cleo (>=2.1.0,<3.0.0)

Answer: This part discovers the needed build requirements and checks their status. cleo needs to fit in versions greater or equal 2.1.0 (>=2.1.0) but lower than 3.0.0 (<3.0.0). cleo has not yet been installed into the 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: 
Problem: package python3-cleo-2.2.1-1.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~a6-1.fc43.x86_64 conflicts with python3 < 3.14.0~a6-1.fc43 provided by python3-3.13.2-2.fc43.i686 from fedora
  - installed package python3-devel-3.14.0~a6-1.fc43.x86_64 conflicts with python3 < 3.14.0~a6-1.fc43 provided by python3-3.13.2-2.fc43.x86_64 from fedora
  - installed package python3-devel-3.14.0~a6-1.fc43.x86_64 conflicts with python3 < 3.14.0~a6-1.fc43 provided by python3-3.13.2-2.fc43.x86_64 from http_kojipkgs_fedoraproject_org_repos_rawhide_latest_basearch
  - cannot install the best candidate for the job

Answer: python3-cleo is a built RPM name providing the upstream requirement cleo. There is a version 2.2.1-1 available in koji rawhide repository (http_kojipkgs_fedoraproject_org_repos_rawhide_latest_basearch), but that version requires "python(abi) = 3.13" which is not available in the Copr repository. Python in the Copr repository provides a different version of "python(abi)" which doesn't match the requirement. Dependency resolver tries to find a suitable version (python3-3.13.2-2.fc43.x86_64) which provides "python(abi) = 3.13" but that would conflict with Python version available in Copr (python3-devel-3.14.0~a6-1.fc43.x86_64). That Python version provides most probably "python(abi) = 3.14". This can't be automatically resolved.
Given following log snippets, their explanation, and nothing else, explain what failure, if any, occurred during build of this package.

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

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

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

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

  Snippets:

  [Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files /builddir/build/BUILD/fwupd-2.0.8-build/BUILDROOT
error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
   /etc/grub.d/35_fwupd
RPM build errors:
    Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
   /etc/grub.d/35_fwupd]: [There is an existing file not packaged into rpm. It will be missing in a target system.
Ommiting a file for packaging can cause  user issues.]


Answer: Issue: Unexpected unpackaged file found.
Resolution: Either package all files or don't create them at all.
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
Checking for unpackaged file(s): /usr/lib/rpm/check-files /builddir/build/BUILD/fwupd-2.0.8-build/BUILDROOT
error: Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
   /etc/grub.d/35_fwupd
RPM build errors:
    Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
   /etc/grub.d/35_fwupd

Answer: There is an existing file not packaged into rpm. It will be missing in a target system.
Ommiting a file for packaging can cause  user issues.
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: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILD/kea-2.6.2-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/libkea-asiodns.so.49*
error: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILD/kea-2.6.2-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/libkea-asiolink.so.72*
error: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILD/kea-2.6.2-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/libkea-cfgclient.so.66*
error: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILD/kea-2.6.2-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/libkea-d2srv.so.47*
error: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILD/kea-2.6.2-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/libkea-dhcp_ddns.so.57*
error: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILD/kea-2.6.2-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/libkea-dhcp++.so.92*
error: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILD/kea-2.6.2-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/libkea-dhcpsrv.so.111*
error: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILD/kea-2.6.2-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/libkea-dns++.so.57*
error: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILD/kea-2.6.2-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/libkea-hooks.so.100*
error: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILD/kea-2.6.2-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/libkea-http.so.72*
error: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILD/kea-2.6.2-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/libkea-process.so.74*
error: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILD/kea-2.6.2-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/libkea-tcp.so.19*
error: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILD/kea-2.6.2-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/libkea-util.so.86*]: [It shows missing libraries with a specific SONAME version]


Answer: Issue: It could not find libraries with the expected SONAME library version on disk
Resolution: change spec file to contain an increased SONAME version for the missing library 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: 
error: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILD/kea-2.6.2-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/libkea-asiodns.so.49*
error: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILD/kea-2.6.2-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/libkea-asiolink.so.72*
error: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILD/kea-2.6.2-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/libkea-cfgclient.so.66*
error: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILD/kea-2.6.2-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/libkea-d2srv.so.47*
error: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILD/kea-2.6.2-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/libkea-dhcp_ddns.so.57*
error: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILD/kea-2.6.2-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/libkea-dhcp++.so.92*
error: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILD/kea-2.6.2-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/libkea-dhcpsrv.so.111*
error: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILD/kea-2.6.2-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/libkea-dns++.so.57*
error: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILD/kea-2.6.2-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/libkea-hooks.so.100*
error: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILD/kea-2.6.2-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/libkea-http.so.72*
error: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILD/kea-2.6.2-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/libkea-process.so.74*
error: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILD/kea-2.6.2-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/libkea-tcp.so.19*
error: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILD/kea-2.6.2-build/BUILDROOT/usr/lib64/libkea-util.so.86*

Answer: It shows missing libraries with a specific SONAME 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:

  [Summary of Failures:
23/54 integration auth_mode                FAIL             0.66s   exit status 1
24/54 integration device_authorize         FAIL             0.68s   exit status 1
30/54 integration device_enroll            FAIL             0.67s   exit status 1
41/54 integration device_label             FAIL             0.67s   exit status 1
43/54 integration device_policy            FAIL             0.66s   exit status 1
48/54 integration domain_bootacl           FAIL             0.66s   exit status 1
54/54 integration device_forget            FAIL             3.18s   exit status 1
Ok:                47  
Fail:              7   ]: [Summary of testsuite failures]
=============
[23/54 integration auth_mode                FAIL             0.66s   exit status 1]: [failed test]
=============
[24/54 integration device_authorize         FAIL             0.68s   exit status 1]: [failed test]
=============
[30/54 integration device_enroll            FAIL             0.67s   exit status 1]: [failed test]
=============
[41/54 integration device_label             FAIL             0.67s   exit status 1]: [failed test]
=============
[43/54 integration device_policy            FAIL             0.66s   exit status 1]: [failed test]
=============
[48/54 integration domain_bootacl           FAIL             0.66s   exit status 1]: [failed test]
=============
[54/54 integration device_forget            FAIL             3.18s   exit status 1]: [failed test]


Answer: Issue: Testsuite failed
Resolution: Fix either code or tests
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: 
Summary of Failures:
23/54 integration auth_mode                FAIL             0.66s   exit status 1
24/54 integration device_authorize         FAIL             0.68s   exit status 1
30/54 integration device_enroll            FAIL             0.67s   exit status 1
41/54 integration device_label             FAIL             0.67s   exit status 1
43/54 integration device_policy            FAIL             0.66s   exit status 1
48/54 integration domain_bootacl           FAIL             0.66s   exit status 1
54/54 integration device_forget            FAIL             3.18s   exit status 1
Ok:                47  
Fail:              7   

Answer: Summary of testsuite failures
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: 
23/54 integration auth_mode                FAIL             0.66s   exit status 1

Answer: failed test
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
24/54 integration device_authorize         FAIL             0.68s   exit status 1

Answer: failed test
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
30/54 integration device_enroll            FAIL             0.67s   exit status 1

Answer: failed test
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
41/54 integration device_label             FAIL             0.67s   exit status 1

Answer: failed test
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
43/54 integration device_policy            FAIL             0.66s   exit status 1

Answer: failed test
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
48/54 integration domain_bootacl           FAIL             0.66s   exit status 1

Answer: failed test
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
54/54 integration device_forget            FAIL             3.18s   exit status 1

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

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

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

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

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

  Snippets:

  [Failures:
  1) MiniMagick::Shell#execute with open3 executes the command in the shell
     Failure/Error: expect(stderr).to match("unable to open image")
       expected "identify: no decode delegate for this image format `' @ error/constitute.c/ReadImage/746.\n" to match "unable to open image"
       Diff:
       @@ -1 +1 @@
       -unable to open image
       +identify: no decode delegate for this image format `' @ error/constitute.c/ReadImage/746.
     # ./spec/lib/mini_magick/shell_spec.rb:54:in 'block (5 levels) in <top (required)>'
     # /usr/share/gems/gems/webmock-3.23.1/lib/webmock/rspec.rb:39:in 'block (2 levels) in <top (required)>']: [RSpec test failure causing the build failure.
The stderr output is caught into stderr variable and matched against "unable to open image", which is testing the underlying binary this library wraps. It changed the message which causes the test failure.]


Answer: Issue: Test "MiniMagick::Shell#execute with open3 executes the command in the shell" failed due to the binary, this executes, changed the format of the output message.
Resolution: Patch the code at "./spec/lib/mini_magick/shell_spec.rb:54" from `match("unable to open image")` to the new `match("no decode delegate for this image format")`.
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:
  1) MiniMagick::Shell#execute with open3 executes the command in the shell
     Failure/Error: expect(stderr).to match("unable to open image")
       expected "identify: no decode delegate for this image format `' @ error/constitute.c/ReadImage/746.\n" to match "unable to open image"
       Diff:
       @@ -1 +1 @@
       -unable to open image
       +identify: no decode delegate for this image format `' @ error/constitute.c/ReadImage/746.
     # ./spec/lib/mini_magick/shell_spec.rb:54:in 'block (5 levels) in <top (required)>'
     # /usr/share/gems/gems/webmock-3.23.1/lib/webmock/rspec.rb:39:in 'block (2 levels) in <top (required)>'

Answer: RSpec test failure causing the build failure.
The stderr output is caught into stderr variable and matched against "unable to open image", which is testing the underlying binary this library wraps. It changed the message which causes the test failure.
Given following log snippets, their explanation, and nothing else, explain what failure, if any, occurred during build of this package.

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

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

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

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

  Snippets:

  [/usr/bin/tar: This does not look like a tar archive
gzip: stdin: not in gzip format
/usr/bin/tar: Child returned status 1
/usr/bin/tar: Error is not recoverable: exiting now]: [Error message]
=============
[3.1.tar.gz]: [Suspicious name of tarball]


Answer: Issue: Source tarball could not be uncompressed.
Resolution: From the error and name of tarball it seems that there is an error in `Source:` in the SPEC file, check that the url contains full name of the 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: 
/usr/bin/tar: This does not look like a tar archive
gzip: stdin: not in gzip format
/usr/bin/tar: Child returned status 1
/usr/bin/tar: Error is not recoverable: exiting now

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

Answer: Suspicious name of tarball