fedora-copr/log_detective_qna huggingface dataset:
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.ZcVUQS (%prep)

Answer: Failed in %prep
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/BUILDROOT/libpreludedb-5.2.0-13.fc40.x86_64/usr/lib64/python3.12/site-packages/_preludedb.*so
error: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/libpreludedb-5.2.0-13.fc40.x86_64/usr/lib64/python3.12/site-packages/__pycache__/preludedb.cpython-312.*pyc
error: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/libpreludedb-5.2.0-13.fc40.x86_64/usr/lib64/python3.12/site-packages/preludedb-5.2.0-py3.12.egg-info
error: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/libpreludedb-5.2.0-13.fc40.x86_64/usr/lib64/python3.12/site-packages/preludedb.py
    File not found: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/libpreludedb-5.2.0-13.fc40.x86_64/usr/lib64/python3.12/site-packages/_preludedb.*so
    File not found: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/libpreludedb-5.2.0-13.fc40.x86_64/usr/lib64/python3.12/site-packages/__pycache__/preludedb.cpython-312.*pyc
    File not found: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/libpreludedb-5.2.0-13.fc40.x86_64/usr/lib64/python3.12/site-packages/preludedb-5.2.0-py3.12.egg-info
    File not found: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/libpreludedb-5.2.0-13.fc40.x86_64/usr/lib64/python3.12/site-packages/preludedb.py]: [These file paths that are defined in %files do not match the reality on the filesystem.]


Answer: Issue: While processing files for build python3-preludedb-5.2.0-13.fc40.x86_64, there are several entries in the spec file in the %files section that do not match the build environment.
Resolution: Either fix the entries in the %files section or make sure the files are correctly installed in the %install section to the paths that are expected in %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/BUILDROOT/libpreludedb-5.2.0-13.fc40.x86_64/usr/lib64/python3.12/site-packages/_preludedb.*so
error: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/libpreludedb-5.2.0-13.fc40.x86_64/usr/lib64/python3.12/site-packages/__pycache__/preludedb.cpython-312.*pyc
error: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/libpreludedb-5.2.0-13.fc40.x86_64/usr/lib64/python3.12/site-packages/preludedb-5.2.0-py3.12.egg-info
error: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/libpreludedb-5.2.0-13.fc40.x86_64/usr/lib64/python3.12/site-packages/preludedb.py
    File not found: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/libpreludedb-5.2.0-13.fc40.x86_64/usr/lib64/python3.12/site-packages/_preludedb.*so
    File not found: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/libpreludedb-5.2.0-13.fc40.x86_64/usr/lib64/python3.12/site-packages/__pycache__/preludedb.cpython-312.*pyc
    File not found: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/libpreludedb-5.2.0-13.fc40.x86_64/usr/lib64/python3.12/site-packages/preludedb-5.2.0-py3.12.egg-info
    File not found: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/libpreludedb-5.2.0-13.fc40.x86_64/usr/lib64/python3.12/site-packages/preludedb.py

Answer: These file paths that are defined in %files do not match the reality on the filesystem.
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:

  [Test failure message:
#
# Fatal error in HandleScope::HandleScope
# Entering the V8 API without proper locking in place
#]: [Description of failed test]


Answer: Issue: The test failed and therefore the build because it hadn't used the newest version of available nodejs.  This is a updated test for version 22.15.1 but the test is still seeing 22.14.0 nodejs
Resolution: Export correctly the context of newest nodejs library
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
Test failure message:
#
# Fatal error in HandleScope::HandleScope
# Entering the V8 API without proper locking in place
#

Answer: Description of 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:

  [RPM build errors:
    source_date_epoch_from_changelog set but %changelog is missing
    File must begin with "/": %{_userunitdir}/fnott.service]: [It shows the build errors.]


Answer: Issue:   source_date_epoch_from_changelog set but %changelog is missing
    File must begin with "/": %{_userunitdir}/fnott.service
Resolution: Provide %changelog. And fix broken macros by installing the appropriate package: systemd-rpm-macros.
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:
    source_date_epoch_from_changelog set but %changelog is missing
    File must begin with "/": %{_userunitdir}/fnott.service

Answer: It shows the build errors.
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/copr-rpmbuild --verbose --drop-resultdir --srpm --task-url https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/backend/get-srpm-build-task/7623350
]: [This indicates that we are building SRC.RPM.]
=============
[make srpm -C /mnt/workdir-ai9uownn/nmstate
]: [You are running `make srpm` to build a tarball.]
=============
[	cargo vendor /tmp/tmp.hPiiG740mq/vendor; \
	cd /tmp/tmp.hPiiG740mq; \
	tar cfJ /mnt/workdir-ai9uownn/nmstate/nmstate-vendor-2.2.34-alpha-0.20240618.2339gite9348628.tar.xz vendor ; \
fi
/bin/sh: line 10: cargo: command not found
tar: vendor: Cannot stat: No such file or directory
]: [The makefile runs `cargo` and `tar`. But both binaries are missing.]


Answer: Issue: You do not have `cargo` and `tar` binaries installed in the build system when you build the SRC.RPM.
Resolution: You have several options:

1) You can put in the Makefile a line `dnf install cargo tar`

2) Or you can switch in Copr build system to Custom method when you can manually call `dnf install` and then `make srpm`.
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/copr-rpmbuild --verbose --drop-resultdir --srpm --task-url https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/backend/get-srpm-build-task/7623350


Answer: This indicates that we are building SRC.RPM.
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
make srpm -C /mnt/workdir-ai9uownn/nmstate


Answer: You are running `make srpm` to build a 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: 
	cargo vendor /tmp/tmp.hPiiG740mq/vendor; \
	cd /tmp/tmp.hPiiG740mq; \
	tar cfJ /mnt/workdir-ai9uownn/nmstate/nmstate-vendor-2.2.34-alpha-0.20240618.2339gite9348628.tar.xz vendor ; \
fi
/bin/sh: line 10: cargo: command not found
tar: vendor: Cannot stat: No such file or directory


Answer: The makefile runs `cargo` and `tar`. But both binaries are missing.
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:

  [E   ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'libvirt']: [The relevant message saying that the required libvirt module could not be found]


Answer: Issue: The build failed because a required module does not exist
Resolution: check you spec file, make sure the named  module or package is adding correctly as a requires, and there is no typo
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
E   ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'libvirt'

Answer: The relevant message saying that the required libvirt module could not 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:

  [
Failed to resolve the transaction:
Problem: cannot install the best candidate for the job
  - nothing provides nim-srpm-macros needed by redhat-rpm-config-178-1.fc34.noar]: [It shows the reason why the build failed.]
=============
[
Failed to resolve the transaction:
Problem: cannot install the best candidate for the job
  - nothing provides nim-srpm-macros needed by redhat-rpm-config-178-1.fc34.noar]: [This is the output from DNF showing the reason why it failed.]


Answer: Issue: A necessary dependency, nim-srpm-macros RPM package, is not installed.
Resolution: Make sure the above package is installed before you try to build the package.
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 

Failed to resolve the transaction:
Problem: cannot install the best candidate for the job
  - nothing provides nim-srpm-macros needed by redhat-rpm-config-178-1.fc34.noar

Answer: It shows the reason why the build 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: 

Failed to resolve the transaction:
Problem: cannot install the best candidate for the job
  - nothing provides nim-srpm-macros needed by redhat-rpm-config-178-1.fc34.noar

Answer: This is the output from DNF showing the reason why it 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:

  [+ /usr/bin/patch -p1 -s --fuzz=0 --no-backup-if-mismatch
The next patch would create the file tools/dep_updaters/update-c-ares.mjs,
which already exists!  Assume -R? [n] 
Apply anyway? [n] 
1 out of 1 hunk ignored
Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected!  Assume -R? [n] 
Apply anyway? [n] 
1 out of 1 hunk ignored -- saving rejects to file tools/dep_updaters/update-c-ares.sh.rej]: [This is root cause of failure]
=============
[error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.6atfUj (%prep)]: [Failed in %prep]


Answer: Issue: Patches cant apply because changes were already present. 
Resolution: Check if your patches still relevant. They might be already introduced upstream (in your sources).
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/patch -p1 -s --fuzz=0 --no-backup-if-mismatch
The next patch would create the file tools/dep_updaters/update-c-ares.mjs,
which already exists!  Assume -R? [n] 
Apply anyway? [n] 
1 out of 1 hunk ignored
Reversed (or previously applied) patch detected!  Assume -R? [n] 
Apply anyway? [n] 
1 out of 1 hunk ignored -- saving rejects to file tools/dep_updaters/update-c-ares.sh.rej

Answer: This is root cause of 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: 
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.6atfUj (%prep)

Answer: Failed in %prep
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:

  [:: [ 09:37:11 ] :: [  BEGIN   ] :: Running 'dnf install -y xapian-core xapian-core-devel g++ --enablerepo=rhel-CRB --enablerepo=rhel-buildroot'
Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:09 ago on Wed 27 Nov 2024 09:37:02 AM UTC.
Package xapian-core-1.4.18-3.el8.x86_64 is already installed.
Package xapian-core-devel-1.4.18-3.el8.x86_64 is already installed.
No match for argument: g++
Error: Unable to find a match: g++
:: [ 09:37:12 ] :: [   FAIL   ] :: Command 'dnf install -y xapian-core xapian-core-devel g++ --enablerepo=rhel-CRB --enablerepo=rhel-buildroot' (Expected 0, got 1)]: [Indication that not all dependencies were installed.]
=============
[:: [ 09:37:14 ] :: [  BEGIN   ] :: Compiling :: actually running 'g++ -o xapian_test xapian_test.cpp -lxapian'
/usr/share/beakerlib/testing.sh: line 896: g++: command not found
:: [ 09:37:14 ] :: [   FAIL   ] :: Compiling (Expected 0, got 127)]: [Compilation failed.]
=============
[:: [ 09:37:14 ] :: [   FAIL   ] :: Running test (Expected 0, got 127)
:: [ 09:37:14 ] :: [   FAIL   ] :: File test_db should exist 
:: [ 09:37:14 ] :: [   FAIL   ] :: File 'xapian.log' should contain 'Document added successfully.' 
:: [ 09:37:14 ] :: [   FAIL   ] :: File 'xapian.log' should contain 'Found 1 matching documents.' 
:: [ 09:37:14 ] :: [   FAIL   ] :: File 'xapian.log' should contain 'Document ID 1: This is a simple test document' 
]: [Failures caused by the failed compilation of xapian-core.]


Answer: Issue: Compilation failed because of the missing g++ command.
Resolution: "gcc-c++" needs to be added as needed into main.fmf file of the test, if the package is installed, g++ command is presented.
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: 
:: [ 09:37:11 ] :: [  BEGIN   ] :: Running 'dnf install -y xapian-core xapian-core-devel g++ --enablerepo=rhel-CRB --enablerepo=rhel-buildroot'
Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:09 ago on Wed 27 Nov 2024 09:37:02 AM UTC.
Package xapian-core-1.4.18-3.el8.x86_64 is already installed.
Package xapian-core-devel-1.4.18-3.el8.x86_64 is already installed.
No match for argument: g++
Error: Unable to find a match: g++
:: [ 09:37:12 ] :: [   FAIL   ] :: Command 'dnf install -y xapian-core xapian-core-devel g++ --enablerepo=rhel-CRB --enablerepo=rhel-buildroot' (Expected 0, got 1)

Answer: Indication that not all dependencies were installed.
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: 
:: [ 09:37:14 ] :: [  BEGIN   ] :: Compiling :: actually running 'g++ -o xapian_test xapian_test.cpp -lxapian'
/usr/share/beakerlib/testing.sh: line 896: g++: command not found
:: [ 09:37:14 ] :: [   FAIL   ] :: Compiling (Expected 0, got 127)

Answer: Compilation 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: 
:: [ 09:37:14 ] :: [   FAIL   ] :: Running test (Expected 0, got 127)
:: [ 09:37:14 ] :: [   FAIL   ] :: File test_db should exist 
:: [ 09:37:14 ] :: [   FAIL   ] :: File 'xapian.log' should contain 'Document added successfully.' 
:: [ 09:37:14 ] :: [   FAIL   ] :: File 'xapian.log' should contain 'Found 1 matching documents.' 
:: [ 09:37:14 ] :: [   FAIL   ] :: File 'xapian.log' should contain 'Document ID 1: This is a simple test document' 


Answer: Failures caused by the failed compilation of xapian-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:

  [
Installing:
 dnf5                x86_64        5.1.12-1.fc40         copr_base        581 k
     replacing  dnf.noarch 4.19.0-1.fc40
     replacing  yum.noarch 4.19.0-1.fc]: [During the bootstrap, dnf5 package from the dnf5-testing Copr repository is being installed. This package contains an obsoletion of the dnf package.]
=============
[Error: Transaction test error:
  file /etc/dnf/dnf.conf from install of libdnf5-5.1.12-1.fc40.x86_64 conflicts with file from package dnf-data-4.19.0-1.fc40.noarch]: [Transaction test fails, because the dnf5 package from the dnf5-testing repository provides /etc/dnf/dnf.conf which is also provided by the dnf package that is already installed.]


Answer: Issue: Both the dnf package from the Fedora base image and the dnf5 package from the dnf5-testing Copr repo provide the /etc/dnf/dnf.conf file.

This occurs because when using the dnf5-testing Copr repository, all dnf related packages are intended to come from this repository, set up with the obsoletion macro to manage the transition from dnf to dnf5.

In this case, the dnf stack packages originate from two sources: the Fedora base image and the dnf5-testing Copr repo. As a result, a conflict arises as both the dnf package from the base image and the dnf5 package from the Copr repo attempt to provide the /etc/dnf/dnf.conf file.
Resolution: There are essentially two solutions to resolve this issue.

The first solution involves avoiding the use of packages from the dnf5-testing repository during the bootstrap process. Instead, packages from the Fedora repository can be utilized. From the perspective of Copr users, this can be achieved by assigning a high priority to the dnf5-testing Copr repository, ensuring that the regular Fedora repositories take precedence during installation.

The second solution entails using the same version of the dnf package in both the base image and during the bootstrap. This would require either instructing the Copr tooling to employ the dnf package for the bootstrap process, aligning it with the Fedora base image, or creating a custom base image containing the dnf5 package to match the package used during the bootstrap.
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 

Installing:
 dnf5                x86_64        5.1.12-1.fc40         copr_base        581 k
     replacing  dnf.noarch 4.19.0-1.fc40
     replacing  yum.noarch 4.19.0-1.fc

Answer: During the bootstrap, dnf5 package from the dnf5-testing Copr repository is being installed. This package contains an obsoletion of the dnf package.
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
Error: Transaction test error:
  file /etc/dnf/dnf.conf from install of libdnf5-5.1.12-1.fc40.x86_64 conflicts with file from package dnf-data-4.19.0-1.fc40.noarch

Answer: Transaction test fails, because the dnf5 package from the dnf5-testing repository provides /etc/dnf/dnf.conf which is also provided by the dnf package that is already installed.
Given following log snippets, their explanation, and nothing else, explain what failure, if any, occurred during build of this package.

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

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

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

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

  Snippets:

  [Report
-------------------
./t-pull.sh                                 (Wstat: 256 (exited 1) Tests: 8 Failed: 1)
  Failed test:  7
  Non-zero exit status: 1
Files=100, Tests=702, 375 wallclock secs ( 0.40 usr  0.10 sys + 55.81 cusr 65.44 csys = 121.75 CPU)
Result: FAIL
make: *** [Makefile:43: test] Error 1
make: Leaving directory '/builddir/build/BUILD/git-lfs-3.4.1/t'
RPM build errors:
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.ik7p5Z (%check)
    Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.ik7p5Z (%che]: [the t-pull.sh test case failed]


Answer: Issue: The test suite is required to pass during the RPM build process. In this case, the test suite failed: t-pull.sh test case failed.
Resolution: Analyze the output of the test case to resolve it. You can also report the issue upstream and work with the upstream developers to resolve 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: 
Report
-------------------
./t-pull.sh                                 (Wstat: 256 (exited 1) Tests: 8 Failed: 1)
  Failed test:  7
  Non-zero exit status: 1
Files=100, Tests=702, 375 wallclock secs ( 0.40 usr  0.10 sys + 55.81 cusr 65.44 csys = 121.75 CPU)
Result: FAIL
make: *** [Makefile:43: test] Error 1
make: Leaving directory '/builddir/build/BUILD/git-lfs-3.4.1/t'
RPM build errors:
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.ik7p5Z (%check)
    Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.ik7p5Z (%che

Answer: the t-pull.sh test case 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:

  [
  file /etc/dnf/dnf.conf from install of libdnf5-5.1.14-1.fc41.x86_64 conflicts with file from package dnf-data-4.19.0-1.fc40.noar]: [It's not possible to install all the required packages because there's a file conflict between a newly installed (libdnf5) and an already installed (dnf-data) package.  
]


Answer: Issue: Some of the required packages were not installed.

Resolution: Resolve the conflict first.
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 

  file /etc/dnf/dnf.conf from install of libdnf5-5.1.14-1.fc41.x86_64 conflicts with file from package dnf-data-4.19.0-1.fc40.noar

Answer: It's not possible to install all the required packages because there's a file conflict between a newly installed (libdnf5) and an already installed (dnf-data) 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:

  [RPM build errors:
    File not found: /builddir/build/BUILD/qdmr-0.12.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/share/doc/libdmrconf/html
    Directory not found: /builddir/build/BUILD/qdmr-0.12.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/share/doc/libdmrconf
]: [This is relevant error message saying that the directory /usr/share/doc/libdmrconf/html is packaged, but isn't installed.]


Answer: Issue: Directory /usr/share/doc/libdmrconf/html isn't installed.
Resolution: Enable installation of the directory in the %build or %install sections of the SPEC file or install it manually in the %install section.
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
RPM build errors:
    File not found: /builddir/build/BUILD/qdmr-0.12.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/share/doc/libdmrconf/html
    Directory not found: /builddir/build/BUILD/qdmr-0.12.1-build/BUILDROOT/usr/share/doc/libdmrconf


Answer: This is relevant error message saying that the directory /usr/share/doc/libdmrconf/html is packaged, but isn't installed.
Given following log snippets, their explanation, and nothing else, explain what failure, if any, occurred during build of this package.

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

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

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

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

  Snippets:

  [tilde.c:37:14: error: conflicting types for ‘strcpy’; have ‘char *(void)’
   37 | extern char *strcpy ();
      |              ^~~~~~]: [compiler error stating that function `strcpy` is redefined]


Answer: Issue: gcc couldn't compile the code
Resolution: Check that flags and libraries are used properly
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: 
tilde.c:37:14: error: conflicting types for ‘strcpy’; have ‘char *(void)’
   37 | extern char *strcpy ();
      |              ^~~~~~

Answer: compiler error stating that function `strcpy` is redefined
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: line 35: Unknown tag: BuidRequires:  autoconf
]: [Error about unknown tag.]


Answer: Issue: There was a typo in the directive "BuildRequires"
Resolution: Fix the typo in the specfile, the correct directive name is "BuildRequires".
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: line 35: Unknown tag: BuidRequires:  autoconf


Answer: Error about unknown tag.
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:

  [main.c: In function ‘main’:
main.c:412:9: error: too many arguments to function ‘initcolors’; expected 0, have 1
  412 |         initcolors(output);
      |         ^~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~
In file included from menu.h:6,
                 from main.c:9:
output.h:10:6: note: declared here
   10 | void initcolors();
      |      ^~~~~~~~~~
make: *** [Makefile:38: main.o] Error 1
make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....]: [The snippet shows the build fail.]


Answer: Issue: void initcolots() is no longer permitted. An actual value type needs to be used since in GCC15 the () will be (void).
Resolution: The definition of initcolors() needs to be changed to:
void initcolors(tOutput* output);
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
main.c: In function ‘main’:
main.c:412:9: error: too many arguments to function ‘initcolors’; expected 0, have 1
  412 |         initcolors(output);
      |         ^~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~
In file included from menu.h:6,
                 from main.c:9:
output.h:10:6: note: declared here
   10 | void initcolors();
      |      ^~~~~~~~~~
make: *** [Makefile:38: main.o] Error 1
make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....

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

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

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

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

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

  Snippets:

  [Dependency libadwaita-1 found: NO found 1.6.6 but need: '>= 1.7']: [This line shows that the software has a minimum version of libadwaita listed in the meson configuration.]
=============
[src/meson.build:55:2: ERROR: Dependency lookup for libadwaita-1 with method 'pkgconfig' failed: Invalid version, need 'libadwaita-1' ['>= 1.7'] found '1.6.6'.]: [This line shows the libadwaita minimum version is configured in the file src/meson.build, and that it's looking for the library with pkgconfig.]


Answer: Issue: The software being built requires libadwaita version 1.7 or higher.  The build environment only has version 1.6.6 available.
Resolution: If possible, upgrade libadwaita to version 1.7 or higher in the build environment.  If that is not possible, try to patch the software to work using the older version of libadwaita you have available.
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
Dependency libadwaita-1 found: NO found 1.6.6 but need: '>= 1.7'

Answer: This line shows that the software has a minimum version of libadwaita listed in the meson configuration.
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: 
src/meson.build:55:2: ERROR: Dependency lookup for libadwaita-1 with method 'pkgconfig' failed: Invalid version, need 'libadwaita-1' ['>= 1.7'] found '1.6.6'.

Answer: This line shows the libadwaita minimum version is configured in the file src/meson.build, and that it's looking for the library with pkgconfig.
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:

  [../src/backlight/backlight.c: In function âread_brightnessâ:
../src/backlight/backlight.c:389:21: error: unused variable âsubsystemâ [-Werror=unused-variable]
  389 |         const char *subsystem, *value;
      |                     ^~~~~~~~~]: [Build failed during compilation of src/backlight/backlight.c

There is an unused variable `subsystem`]


Answer: Issue: Compiler detected unused variable
Resolution: Check if unused variables are needed or not. If yes, then use them; otherwise, remove them.
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: 
../src/backlight/backlight.c: In function âread_brightnessâ:
../src/backlight/backlight.c:389:21: error: unused variable âsubsystemâ [-Werror=unused-variable]
  389 |         const char *subsystem, *value;
      |                     ^~~~~~~~~

Answer: Build failed during compilation of src/backlight/backlight.c

There is an unused variable `subsystem`
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: Bad file: /builddir/build/SOURCES/linux-arm64-0.19.2.tgz: No such file or directory
error: Bad file: /builddir/build/SOURCES/linux-x64-0.19.2.tgz: No such file or directory
    Bad file: /builddir/build/SOURCES/linux-arm64-0.19.2.tgz: No such file or directory
    Bad file: /builddir/build/SOURCES/linux-x64-0.19.2.tgz: No such file or directory]: [Source files could not be found found that was extracted from src.rpm]


Answer: Issue: Source files could not be found found that was extracted from src.rpm
Resolution: Add source files in spec file and rebuild the src.rpm
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
RPM build errors:
error: Bad file: /builddir/build/SOURCES/linux-arm64-0.19.2.tgz: No such file or directory
error: Bad file: /builddir/build/SOURCES/linux-x64-0.19.2.tgz: No such file or directory
    Bad file: /builddir/build/SOURCES/linux-arm64-0.19.2.tgz: No such file or directory
    Bad file: /builddir/build/SOURCES/linux-x64-0.19.2.tgz: No such file or directory

Answer: Source files could not be found found that was extracted from src.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:

  [ERROR: Invalid value `None` in intersphinx_mapping['http://docs.python.org/']. Expected a two-element tuple or list.]: [Error from the sphinx itself about its invalid entry in the configuration]


Answer: Issue: Documentation cannot be built used as is with newer Sphinx 8.x. 
Resolution: Sphinx 8x has changed its newer configuration,
Analyse following RPM build log snippet. Describe contents accurately, without speculation or suggestions for resolution.            
Your analysis must be as concise as possible, while keeping relevant information intact.
Snippet: 
ERROR: Invalid value `None` in intersphinx_mapping['http://docs.python.org/']. Expected a two-element tuple or list.

Answer: Error from the sphinx itself about its invalid entry in the configuration
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:  No match for argument: compat-libi2c-devel
]: [Error in build root preparation]


Answer: Issue: Packager was not able to find required dependency
Resolution: Check if required package is available for specific os release this build targets. Update build requirements and configure parameters if 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: 
DEBUG util.py:459:  Failed to resolve the transaction:
DEBUG util.py:459:  No match for argument: compat-libi2c-devel


Answer: Error in build root preparation
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 -f -i
configure.ac:1: error: Autoconf version 2.71 or higher is required]: [Running the autoreconf tool failed.]


Answer: Issue: The configure.ac file has been processed by autoconf version older than 2.71.
Resolution: Ensure the autoconf package version 2.71 or newer is available in 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: 
+ autoreconf -f -i
configure.ac:1: error: Autoconf version 2.71 or higher is required

Answer: Running the autoreconf tool 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:

  [+ RUBYOPT=-Ilib
+ shindo
  
  Formatador: basics
    #display_line(Formatador) + returns "    Formatador\n"
    #display_lines(['one', 'two'] + returns "    one\n    two\n"
    #indent { display_line('Formatador') } + returns "      Formatador\n"
  
  Formatador: tables
    #display_table([{:a => 1}, {:a => 2}]) + returns "    +---+\n    | a |\n    +---+\n    | 1 |\n    +---+\n    | 2 |\n    +---+\n"
    #display_table([], [:header]) + returns "    +--------+\n    | header |\n    +--------+\n    +--------+\n"
    #display_table([{:a => 1}], [:header]) + returns "    +--------+\n    | header |\n    +--------+\n    |        |\n    +--------+\n"
    #display_table([{:a => 1, :nested => {:key => 'value'}}], [:header, :'nested.key']) + returns "    +---+------------+\n    | a | nested.key |\n    +---+------------+\n    | 1 | value      |\n    +---+------------+\n"
    #display_table([{:a => 1, :nested => {:key => 'value'}}]) - returns "    +---+-----------------+\n    | a | nested          |\n    +---+-----------------+\n    | 1 | {:key=>\"value\"} |\n    +---+-----------------+\n"
      expected => "    +---+-----------------+\n    | a | nested          |\n    +---+-----------------+\n    | 1 | {:key=>\"value\"} |\n    +---+-----------------+\n"
      returned => "    +---+----------------+\n    | a | nested         |\n    +---+----------------+\n    | 1 | {key: \"value\"} |\n    +---+----------------+\n"
    #display_table([{:a => 1, 'just.pointed' => :value}]) + returns "    +---+--------------+\n    | a | just.pointed |\n    +---+--------------+\n    | 1 | value        |\n    +---+--------------+\n"
  
  1 failed and 8 succeeded in 0.002127538 seconds]: [Detailed test failure that shows different formatting than what was expected in the tests.]


Answer: Issue: Ruby changed debug formatting, which some gems relied upon in their tests. This is one of such cases.
Resolution: Change the format in tests to be consistent with the expectation of Ruby.
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: 
+ RUBYOPT=-Ilib
+ shindo
  
  Formatador: basics
    #display_line(Formatador) + returns "    Formatador\n"
    #display_lines(['one', 'two'] + returns "    one\n    two\n"
    #indent { display_line('Formatador') } + returns "      Formatador\n"
  
  Formatador: tables
    #display_table([{:a => 1}, {:a => 2}]) + returns "    +---+\n    | a |\n    +---+\n    | 1 |\n    +---+\n    | 2 |\n    +---+\n"
    #display_table([], [:header]) + returns "    +--------+\n    | header |\n    +--------+\n    +--------+\n"
    #display_table([{:a => 1}], [:header]) + returns "    +--------+\n    | header |\n    +--------+\n    |        |\n    +--------+\n"
    #display_table([{:a => 1, :nested => {:key => 'value'}}], [:header, :'nested.key']) + returns "    +---+------------+\n    | a | nested.key |\n    +---+------------+\n    | 1 | value      |\n    +---+------------+\n"
    #display_table([{:a => 1, :nested => {:key => 'value'}}]) - returns "    +---+-----------------+\n    | a | nested          |\n    +---+-----------------+\n    | 1 | {:key=>\"value\"} |\n    +---+-----------------+\n"
      expected => "    +---+-----------------+\n    | a | nested          |\n    +---+-----------------+\n    | 1 | {:key=>\"value\"} |\n    +---+-----------------+\n"
      returned => "    +---+----------------+\n    | a | nested         |\n    +---+----------------+\n    | 1 | {key: \"value\"} |\n    +---+----------------+\n"
    #display_table([{:a => 1, 'just.pointed' => :value}]) + returns "    +---+--------------+\n    | a | just.pointed |\n    +---+--------------+\n    | 1 | value        |\n    +---+--------------+\n"
  
  1 failed and 8 succeeded in 0.002127538 seconds

Answer: Detailed test failure that shows different formatting than what was expected in the tests.
Given following log snippets, their explanation, and nothing else, explain what failure, if any, occurred during build of this package.

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

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

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

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

  Snippets:

  [    File not found: /builddir/build/BUILD/udpcast-20211207-build/BUILDROOT/usr/bin/udp-sender
    File not found: /builddir/build/BUILD/udpcast-20211207-build/BUILDROOT/usr/bin/udp-receiver
]: [File not found: /builddir/build/BUILD/udpcast-20211207-build/BUILDROOT/usr/bin/udp-sender and File not found: /builddir/build/BUILD/udpcast-20211207-build/BUILDROOT/usr/bin/udp-receiver: These lines tell you the specific files that are missing. The path /builddir/build/BUILD/udpcast-20211207-build/BUILDROOT is crucial. This is the root directory where the package will be "installed" during the build process. It's a temporary staging area. The RPM build process expects to find the udp-sender and udp-receiver executables within this staging area, specifically in the usr/bin subdirectory.]


Answer: Issue: This RPM build failure message tells you exactly what's wrong: the RPM package is trying to include the files /usr/bin/udp-sender and /usr/bin/udp-receiver, but the build process can't find them where it expects them to be. 
Resolution: The most likely reason is that the udpcast software isn't being compiled and installed correctly within the build environment.  The RPM spec file (the instructions for building the RPM) is supposed to handle this.  The build process should compile the source code, and then install the resulting executables into the BUILDROOT directory.  If this installation step is failing or is missing, the files won't be there.