Problem: package libblockdev-plugins-all-3.2.1-2.eln145.s390x from lorax-repo-0 requires libblockdev-s390(s390-64) = 3.2.1-2.eln145, but none of the providers can be installed
  - package libblockdev-s390-3.2.1-2.eln145.s390x from lorax-repo-0 requires s390utils, but none of the providers can be installed
  - package anaconda-install-env-deps-42.23-1.eln145.s390x from lorax-repo-0 requires libblockdev-plugins-all >= 2.1, but none of the providers can be installed
  - package s390utils-2:2.35.0-4.eln145.s390x from lorax-repo-0 requires s390utils-osasnmpd = 2:2.35.0-4.eln145, but none of the providers can be installed
  - package anaconda-install-img-deps-42.23-1.eln145.s390x from lorax-repo-0 requires anaconda-install-env-deps = 42.23-1.eln145, but none of the providers can be installed
  - package s390utils-osasnmpd-2:2.35.0-4.eln145.s390x from lorax-repo-0 requires net-snmp, but none of the providers can be installed
  - conflicting requests
  - nothing provides perl(Mail::Sender) needed by net-snmp-1:5.9.4-9.eln145.s390x from lorax-repo-0

This is yet more fallout from the bin-sbin merge; net-snmp was including parts of net-snmp-perl and hence its dependencies due to a glob in its %files. Filed https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/net-snmp/pull-request/9 to fix, but I suspect there are more such instances, and finding them is going to be difficult because RPM allows you to package and install an identical file in two different subpackages (RPMs).

/cc @zbyszek @sharkcz

Crude first attempt to see what else may need to be fixed along these lines:

$ grep -l '^%{_bindir}.*\*' *.spec | xargs grep -l '^%{_sbindir}.*\*'
aircrack-ng.spec
argus.spec
ax25-apps.spec
ax25-tools.spec
bind9-next.spec
bind.spec
common-lisp-controller.spec
copr-backend.spec
cronolog.spec
gpm.spec
grub2.spec
hercules.spec
i2c-tools.spec
icu.spec
ikiwiki.spec
irda-utils.spec
lcdproc.spec
libbonobo.spec
libdnet.spec
linux-atm.spec
lirc.spec
lm_sensors.spec
nagios.spec
net-snmp.spec
newscache.spec
ntpsec.spec
oddjob.spec
opendnssec.spec
openhpi.spec
openldap.spec
pure-ftpd.spec
quota.spec
rt.spec
sagator.spec
sblim-gather.spec
soundmodem.spec
tlp.spec
tpm-tools.spec
udftools.spec
varnish.spec
x2goserver.spec
xawtv.spec
xen.spec
xtide.spec
yp-tools.spec

aircrack-ng.spec - looks OK
argus.spec - looks OK
ax25-apps.spec - single %files
ax25-tools.spec - looks OK
bind9-next.spec - looks OK
bind.spec - same
common-lisp-controller.spec - single %files
copr-backend.spec - single %files
cronolog.spec - single %files
gpm.spec - looks OK
grub2.spec - this one is quite complex, but looks OK too, the glob is very narrow
hercules.spec - single %files
i2c-tools.spec - problem
icu.spec - problem
ikiwiki.spec - looks OK
irda-utils.spec - single %files
lcdproc.spec - single %files
libbonobo.spec - looks OK
libdnet.spec - problem
linux-atm.spec - looks OK
lirc.spec - problem
lm_sensors.spec - looks OK
nagios.spec - looks OK
net-snmp.spec - fixed
newscache.spec - single %files
ntpsec.spec - looks OK
oddjob.spec - looks OK
opendnssec.spec - single %files
openhpi.spec - single %files
openldap.spec - problem
pure-ftpd.spec - looks OK
quota.spec - looks OK
rt.spec - looks OK
sagator.spec - looks OK
sblim-gather.spec - looks OK
soundmodem.spec - looks OK
tlp.spec - looks OK
tpm-tools.spec - looks OK
udftools.spec - single %files
varnish.spec - looks OK
x2goserver.spec - problem
xawtv.spec - looks OK
xen.spec - looks OK
xtide.spec - looks OK
yp-tools.spec - single %files

OK, we have a few packages that need looking into. Please post links to any PRs here, I'll do so too.

i2c-tools - actually OK
icu - https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/icu/pull-request/14
libdnet - https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libdnet/pull-request/3
lirc - https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/lirc/pull-request/4
openldap - https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/openldap/pull-request/20
x2goserver.spec - actually OK

So that's not so bad.

The "single %files" packages should also be fixed, as it means the same files are being double-packaged.

They are not really "double packaged". The path is the same, so this just results in a harmless warning from rpmbuild. I think it's fine to leave it to maintainer to fix.

Thanks for taking care of these. Hopefully we're past the worst of this transition now.