Who is going to support it, maybe you?

Fedora was never about "choice" in the sense of "supporting" all possible options. If you want this, you need to switch to Debian or a similar distro. I used quotes around "support" because there is a clear tradeoff between the number of choices and the qualify with which those choices can be supported. We want to move forward and integrate new things and provide the best possible support for the ones that we chose to support, which in turn means that we need to drop the other ones. We could pretend to provide support, but it's better to be forthright and remove the package if we don't support it.

Supporting three independent network configuration stacks in Fedora is a big burden, and the reasons do deprecate network-scripts have been described very well. The old sysvinit-style stack has been in life-support mode for years. You seems to be under the impression that the very visible warning that was added recently is somehow related to the scripts not working. It is NOT. The warning is just a message. After a lot of noise, in #1643763 the resolution is that network-scripts-ppp.rpm was not installed.

To summarize, we have package A, which has no upstream development, distro maintainers do not want to support it, and the package has outstanding bugs. Package A needs to interact deeply with the rest of the system and early boot so it's not a package that can survive years without maintainership. The same functionality is provided by packages B and C. The maintainers decide to sunset package A, add deprecation warning as a heads-up to users, and want the users of package A to move to B or C, and finally remove A. Maintainers of A are doing the right and responsible thing here.

If you believe that a behemoth as is NetworkManager can be 'better' than a few scripts without consulting even me for whatever task that you refuse to perform for maintenance then what do you will attain by closing the issue?
You still do not understand the Unix(tm) way, you refuse to learn about it and refuse to give things a chance.
I do not need a specific tool with whatever issues instead of a proven tool that is simpler and less resource hungry.

@udovdh I am closing this issue because all you are doing here is complaining about something that has been a public and clearly-documented plan for years.

The network-scripts are abandoned upstream. There is no one maintaining them. If you want a distribution that still uses or maintains them, you are free to switch.

Also, don't give us garbage about the "Unix(tm) way". Fedora is not Unix. Fedora is a modern operating system. It shares a common history with Unix, but unlike some other distros, Fedora doesn't stay stuck in the past with bad designs simply because they have always been done that way. If everyone thought like that, we'd all still be riding horses instead of driving automobiles or using a slide-rule instead of a computer.

If you want to build your own Fedora Remix and remove NetworkManager, be our guest. No one is stopping you. Have a great time maintaining it.

You do not, however, have any right to demand anything from us. You aren't paying us, you aren't contributing anything back (I just looked up your FAS history) and you aren't even attempting to phrase your desires as a request.

So, as far as I am concerned: You have made your demands known and received an answer. That's why I closed this issue.

So you are chearing people on to moev away from the project that you invest whatever in?
While (in the future) forcing people onto daemons for tasks that before that ran without daemon?
And you call such a step 'modern'? My systems do not need a daemon so why force me to use one?
There is no technical need.
And what is bad about past? That is no-excuse as it simply works. Automobiles are being forced back to the early 1900's by driving on battery-power under the excuse of whatever idea.
I did not demand, I tried to make a case in a language that is not my own.
And if you start complaining about the shape of things instead of the content, how professional is that?
In all of these issues, 'Fedora' (whatever that is) has nicely defined itself by the communications from 'fesco'. I call the lack of policy a fiasco. I call the lack of consideration for the user a fiasco. I call the bogus argumnets of 'modern' a fiasco. See where systemd ended up. See where the successor to network-scripts bring us. NOTall is progress.
And I simply wanted to put that to your attention because if such a simple bunch of scripts is too much, then what isn't? The stuff that officially has support hasn't: see the memory leaks in gnome-shell, see the bugs in my (vanished) front page in bugzilla where one cannot sort on date easily anymore, etc.
So if we conclude that you are not after quality, after what the user needs and not what fesco or you thinks they need then you know that you can sometimes be slightly wrong.
And if you think I cam not contributing your definition is sorely lacking. (as if coming here is not showing something, as if logging a bug doesn't say something, etc, etc)
Another sign of your distorted views.

Nobody is forcing you to use anything. Please stop this discussion, it's going nowhere.

If taking away a working, simple solution in favor of a complex bunch of code is not forcing then what is?

Please stop this discussion, it's going nowhere.

It is not discussing. It is you not wanting to accept truth.
A simpler solution should always remain the option for the user.

See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663280.
A bug about gnome-shell.
A core compenent for 'simple' users.
Where is thesupport? I say we deprecate it.

Core message is: 'support' apparently is NO reason to deprecate.