Should this new page be referenced from the navigation pane, similar to how the Python packaging guidelines have a dropdown menu for the "old" stuff?

@decathorpe Hmmm. A fair question.

My inclination was "no", because really nobody should be looking at this stuff, and the few people who might still need to will find the link at the same place they've always looked.

But it doesn't seem like there's much precedent for having documents in the Guidelines that aren't in the TOC, so maybe it does need an entry. For however long it continues to haunt us, until we can finally get rid of the doc completely.

I take it back, I scanned the entire collection and there is one file in guidelines/modules/ROOT/pages/ that doesn't appear in guidelines/modules/ROOT/nav.adoc (well, two, including the one I added) — Unversioned_shared_objects.adoc is not in the navigation list. It's linked to (twice) from pages/index.adoc, and nowhere else.

Honestly if the scriptlets aren't needed in F41, there's no need to have them in any guidelines page at all unless it's a mention that they should be removed. If someone really wants to see ancient content, the git history will have it.

Are they not needed? Because, though it's vanishingly small, there is still a handful of legacy GNOME 2-era packages that still use GConf even in F42:

$ sudo dnf repoquery --repoid=fedora --repoid=updates \
   --whatprovides /etc/gconf/schemas/\*       
Updating and loading repositories:
 Fedora 42 - x86_64 - Updates           100% | 125.2 KiB/s |  20.9 KiB |  00m00s
Repositories loaded.
alexandria-0:0.7.9-10.fc42.noarch
cdcollect-0:0.6.0-45.fc42.x86_64
gconf-editor-0:3.0.1-32.fc42.x86_64
gnome-do-0:0.95.3-30.fc42.x86_64
gnome-phone-manager-0:0.69-47.fc42.x86_64
gnome-vfs2-common-0:2.24.4-47.fc42.noarch
ignuit-0:2.24.3-19.fc42.x86_64
libgnome-0:2.32.1-33.fc42.i686
libgnome-0:2.32.1-33.fc42.x86_64
mail-notification-0:5.4-113.git.9ae8768.fc42.x86_64
tomboy-0:1.15.9-23.fc42.x86_64

(Edit: RPM Fusion also supplies one additional GConf-enabled package, ogmrip. So they potentially have an ongoing need for access to our GConf guidelines, as well.)

I definitely think the length of that section (now page) is excessive, honestly it would be even if GConf were still a critical dependency. But it didn't feel worth editing it for length, when the whole thing can hopefully be chucked in the bin at some point soon. I'm just not sure "soon" is quite here yet.

Commit a612abd6 fixes this pull-request