miniupnpd: Update package to 2.3.6

[Self-Hosting-Group]

and change title to term used in LuCi

Maintainer:
Compile tested: not tested on OpenWrt
Run tested: not tested on OpenWrt

[Self-Hosting-Group]

This commit miniupnp/miniupnp@02da705 renamed a configuration option in the updated miniupnpd to enable_pcp_pmp, but since the old name is still accepted, no change was made in the PR.

[1715173329]

but since the old name is still accepted, no change was made in the PR.

Please follow upstream change and migrate to new config name.

[BKPepe]

Also, make sure that it is compile and run tested for OpenWrt.

[BKPepe]

Ehh... for me it seems like the title is the same. Why do we need to have this change? Since, there is no commit description, it is not clear. I am in favor to close this PR.

[Self-Hosting-Group]

@BKPepe

Ehh... for me it seems like the title is the same. Why do we need to have this change? Since, there is no commit description, it is not clear. I am in favor to close this PR.

Yes, almost, it is a cosmetic change, an adaptation to the revised wording of the corresponding luci-app-upnp plugin openwrt/luci#6863. PR updated to include the version update.

[stangri]

@Self-Hosting-Group thank you for your contribution. Since I was tagged on this PR, I have the following comments:

1. I'm not the miniupnp maintainer, I don't think I ever contributed to it actually.
2. There's a PKG_VERSION update in this PR, which unless you're looking at the individual commits, is not mentioned in the PR itself. Either way would be nice to have a better description of all the changes.
3. I may be wrong here, but I thought it's encouraged to squash the commits in a PR to a single commit.
4. While the PKG_VERSION is updated, the PKG_RELEASE is not reset to 1.
5. I feel that the uci-defaults script to migrate the old setting a a new one would be welcome.
6. Should this also not be linked from a corresponding PR in the luci-app to effect the change of settings?

[Self-Hosting-Group]

@stangri: Thank you for your reply. PR updated. Can we possibly do the PR without the configuration change (as backword compatible) and do it in a later PR (including LuCi)? I am waiting for some more upstream changes.

[stangri]

@stangri: Thank you for your reply. PR updated. Can we possibly do the PR without the configuration change (as backword compatible) and do it in a later PR (including LuCi)? I am waiting for some more upstream changes.

That's up to maintainer, I just provided (hopefully helpful) feedback.

[BKPepe]

CI is still failing for you. Would you mind to fix it?

[Neustradamus]

@Self-Hosting-Group: Thanks!