debugdata.tar from using --debugsolver
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YGV383nbjNRpyJ4nEnyOTolZWjxNZAhk/view?usp=sharing

This happens when package disappears from Fedora, but the comps metadata are not updated. I am reassigning it to distribution.

(In reply to Pavla Kratochvilova from comment #2)
> This happens when package disappears from Fedora, but the comps metadata are
> not updated. I am reassigning it to distribution.

I'm not sure that's what's happening here. For example, this error:

> no group 'arm-tools' from environment 'workstation-product-environment'

The F37 comps has workstation-product-environment refers to arm-tools here:
https://pagure.io/fedora-comps/blob/main/f/comps-f37.xml.in#_6166

But the group *does* exist, and is defined in:
https://pagure.io/fedora-comps/blob/main/f/comps-f37.xml.in#_104

Some of the packages are obviously incorrect. For example, xmms-flac was replaced by flac-libs. But flac-libs obsoletes xmms-flac, so shouldn't that still work?
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/flac/blob/f37/f/flac.spec#_31

However, some packages exist in F36 and F37. For example qgnomeplatform, which is actually qgnomeplatform-qt5, with a Provides: of qgnomeplatform:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/qgnomeplatform/blob/f37/f/qgnomeplatform.spec#_43

Trying to reproduce this, I see an error from python3-unicodecsv which is due to an FTBFS (bug 2021938). I'm going to set this bug to depend on bug 2021938 and bug 2117256 that Chris mentioned in the initial report. We'll see what things look like once those are resolved.

(In reply to Ben Cotton from comment #3)
> Some of the packages are obviously incorrect. For example, xmms-flac was
> replaced by flac-libs. But flac-libs obsoletes xmms-flac, so shouldn't that
> still work?
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/flac/blob/f37/f/flac.spec#_31
> 
> However, some packages exist in F36 and F37. For example qgnomeplatform,
> which is actually qgnomeplatform-qt5, with a Provides: of qgnomeplatform:
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/qgnomeplatform/blob/f37/f/qgnomeplatform.
> spec#_43

Actually, no, groups specify package names, not provides, so it cannot be satisfied by different package with the same provide or obsolete.

(In reply to Pavla Kratochvilova from comment #4)

> Actually, no, groups specify package names, not provides, so it cannot be
> satisfied by different package with the same provide or obsolete.

Ah, I didn't know that, thank you! Looks like I have some cleanup to do, then.

Several of these are already tracked in existing bugs or issues:

https://pagure.io/fedora-comps/issues
https://bugz.fedoraproject.org/comps

There really needs to be some kind of automated check on package retirement which requires somebody to clean up comps before the package is actually retired. Right now somebody has to remember to run the comps `check-missing` script every so often and clean up the mess, and it's no fun so nobody does.

(In reply to Adam Williamson from comment #6)

> There really needs to be some kind of automated check on package retirement
> which requires somebody to clean up comps before the package is actually
> retired. Right now somebody has to remember to run the comps `check-missing`
> script every so often and clean up the mess, and it's no fun so nobody does.

Automation is good, but until we have that, I've opened an issue to #action bcotton once per release, which is better than nothing:
https://pagure.io/fedora-pgm/schedule/issue/89

Setting this BZ to MODIFIED since the comps changes have been merged.

But only for Rawhide. This bug is on F37. We still have to decide what to do about F37.

On the whole, I figure we should leave this stuff alone for F37. It's annoying to 'cherry-pick' the fixes to F37 because of how comps is arranged (one file per release in one branch, not branch per release). And these aren't really causing any problems, they're just warning messages. So I'm kinda OK with making F38 the cutoff for cleaning all this stuff up.

Do the messages make you really sad, Chris, or are you OK with this being fixed from F38 forwards?

It's probably adequate to document the issue in Common Bugs. The messages don't make me sad, but I can't tell from the message that it's just a warning, or what the consequences are. It makes me wonder whether the upgrade is somehow incomplete.

This message is a reminder that Fedora Linux 36 is nearing its end of life.
Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora Linux 36 on 2023-05-16.
It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer
maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a
'version' of '36'.

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, change the 'version' 
to a later Fedora Linux version. Note that the version field may be hidden.
Click the "Show advanced fields" button if you do not see it.

Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not 
able to fix it before Fedora Linux 36 is end of life. If you would still like 
to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version 
of Fedora Linux, you are encouraged to change the 'version' to a later version
prior to this bug being closed.

Fedora Linux 36 entered end-of-life (EOL) status on 2023-05-16.

Fedora Linux 36 is no longer maintained, which means that it
will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we
are closing this bug.

If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora Linux
please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. Note that the version
field may be hidden. Click the "Show advanced fields" button if you do not see
the version field.

If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against an
active release.

Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.