Interface auto-connect request for the `nano-strict` snap

Dear @reviewers, I would like to request the following interface auto-connections for according to the process for aliases, auto-connections and tracks.

Interface Name Reasoning
Read-write access
The upstream preferred location of user-wide rcfiles(source), and is commonly edited manually using itself
Read-only access
The upstream preferred location of system-wide rcfiles(source), assuming that users can always override the system-wide settings in the user-wide rcfiles read-write access is not requested at the moment

Thanks in advance!

@reviewers Re-ping, even if the topic is now 1 year old :wink: .

Seems this got missed since it is tagged to the store category instead of store-requests. I have added it to our internal queue.

Whilst nano would be the clear owner of these paths, is there any chance for incompatibility if a different version of nano is installed on the host system natively compared to nano-strict if both are using these same files? Especially if write access is granted I imagine this may be a potential issue. Can you please clarify?

@Lin-Buo-Ren ping, can you please provide the requested information? Thanks!

First of all, apologies for the ignorance.

The main reason for the write access is that editing a text editor’s own configuration file using itself is quite natural and expected the editor’s user(a.k.a. Using Vim to edit Nano’s configuration is definitely possible, but not sane IMO).

For the compatibility problem, it should not matter much as Nano gracefully disregards invalid directives in the nanorc:

$ LANG=C nano
Error in /home/brlin/.nanorc on line 1: Command "fjdsklfsdfsjl" not understood
Error in /home/brlin/.nanorc on line 2: Command "dkjfklsdj;f" not understood


Thanks for the heads-up!

1 Like

+1 for personal-files r/w access to $HOME/.config/nano and $HOME/.nanorc.
+1 for system-files read-only access to /etc/nanorc.

It seems reasonable to me that a nano snap should be able to access the user’s nano config. Since nano gracefully disregards invalid config entries, there shouldn’t be any issues if the snapped version of nano differs from the version installed natively on the host.

Can other @reviewers please vote?

1 Like

+1 from me too for the requested accesses.

+2 votes for, 0 votes against, this is now able to proceed however I notice the current uploaded snap revisions that request this need to be updated since they do not declare these personal-files and system-files instances correctly - could you please update the snap to declare these as follows:

  # Configuration access
    interface: personal-files  
    - $HOME/.config/nano
    - $HOME/.nanorc
    interface: system-files
    - /etc/nanorc

This way snap users can be more informed about what access is being provided.

@Lin-Buo-Ren can you please upload a version of nano-strict with these changes and I can grant the requested access.

@Lin-Buo-Ren I still don’t see the changes requested by @alexmurray in the latest uploaded snap. Could you please make the required modifications and upload a new revision so we can proceed with the approval? Thanks!

@Lin-Buo-Ren this has now been granted, but please note you need to make the changes to name the interfaces as I specified back in comment 8 Interface auto-connect request for the `nano-strict` snap above otherwise the snap will not pass automated review.