There are certainly some EF lenses for which there is no RF analog. I will be keeping my TS-E 17/24 and my MP-E 65, and we'll see when/if Canon offers something in RF to replace them.

Of lenses where there's overlap, I personally don't see many (if any) cases where the EF version is a 'classic' worth keeping because of that. But there may be some, for some people. For example, the RF 100-300/2.8 is a great lens and seems to be Canon's 'replacement' for the EF 300/2.8 II, but it's much bigger than the EF prime and for some that size increase may be problematic. The rumored RF 200-500/4 is likely to be the size (based on the published patent applications) of the EF 600/4 III, and for some people that will be too much.

OTOH, I can also see many cases where the RF version doesn't offer sufficiently compelling advantages to justify the cost of upgrading. I thought that about the RF 100/2.8 Macro (I don't need 1.4x since I have the MP-E, and there is the focus shift issue). But I succumbed to temptation on a good deal, and I found the focus shift to be a non-issue. Likewise, I had little interest in the RF 10-20/4 since I have the 11-24/4 and sometimes use filters in the adapter (front filtering the 11-24 is possible but a PITA). However, the much smaller size and lower weight of the RF 10-20/4 is a big advantage, as I directly noticed when packing the 11-24 for a recent trip. I now plan to get the 10-20/4 before I go to the Swiss Alps in early summer.