reasoning: We are doing shell access over WAMP, the commands are inspired by SSH hence the naming
To the best of my knowledge, there is no existing snap alias already granted or a well-known Linux application conflicting with the aliases requested here.
The request looks legit, however I wonder if it is now time to start being a bit stricter with aliases, especially with very short ones. wcp could be WAMP file copy or Wayland Control Panel (which someone could argue to have more relevance according to github repositories stars). Also, users can easily define their preferred aliases as snap alias wampshell.wcp wcp.
Thus, I propose to wait until we have a clear picture of what the policy for aliases should look like going forward
If someone installs my project using go install ... they will get those bin files added to the GOBIN. I hope we can have a similar behavior when installing snap as well. Doing wampshell cp ... and wampshell sh... wouldn’t be fun, especially when we are trying to be similar to SSH in terms of “familiarity”.
The project you shared is a bunch of bash scripts, doing things that a strict snap wouldnt be able to do and would need to have classic confinement first, last commit was one year ago. so I wouldnt sweat on it.
To be clear, I’m not saying that wampshell should not receive the requested aliases because of the other project. It was just an example that it si quite easy to find collisions for short aliases. That’s also the reason why three letter snap names are not generally allowed anymore. Thus, I wonder if we should revisit the policy for aliases and perhaps make it stricter.
In the meantime, you can always point the users to create the aliases locally in the installation instructions and in the snap description. Issuing following commands will do the work
snap alias wampshell.wsh wsh
snap alias wampshell.wcp wcp
snap alias wampshell.wsh-keygen wsh-keygen