So, the “tex($foo)” provides are still mostly there, but only for the files that matter, not every single file provided by every component. This includes .sty, .tex files, but not every font file, for example.
I’ll see how many Provides it would add to include .cls files.
I guess it depends a bit an what “we” want as a distro: should other packages require tex(foo) or texlive-foo, i.e. should assumptions be made about which package provides a certain tex feature? tex(foo) should be more stable in principle, although right now it feels a bit different, of course 
Tom, on the wiki page, one can still read:
Targeted release: Fedora Linux 44
and the page is in the category “Category:ChangeAcceptedF44”. That is confusing, since this change seems to be for F45.
In practice, TeXLive 2025 is already in Fedora 44.
That indication is correct. The change is for F44 and it was already approved.
#3562 Shift TeXLive 2025 change from Fedora 45 to Fedora 44
It is already available in Fedora 44.
Then it is the title and the tag of this discussion that are confusing. Thanks for the clarification.
FESCo has approved to shift this change from F45 to F44: Making sure you're not a bot!
I updated the title and tags correspondingly.
I have also gone ahead to do the remaining changes to keep things accurate:
As both a user and packager, I find these tex(…) provides to be extremely useful. As mentioned earlier, it’s far nicer to install tex(something-latex-complains-is-missing) than figure out what package it actually is. This is something that works across much of the Fedora ecosystem, e.g., python3dist(…) for Python, pkgconfig(…) for pkg-config files, cmake(…) for CMake files, ruby(…) for Ruby, etc.
To that end, I’ve put together a PR to automate these:
With this automation, we can a) save thousands of lines of Provides and b) re-add all the previous ones with minimal effort.