openwrt
net/miniupnpd: Update package title
Maintainer: @stangri Compile tested: not tested on OpenWrt Run tested: not tested on OpenWrt
This commit https://github.com/miniupnp/miniupnp/commit/02da7055fcec0dfd2903ab1e3f7d050f3ffb90e0 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.
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.
PR updated, fix package title only, version update with next release.
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.
@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 https://github.com/openwrt/luci/pull/6863. PR updated to include the version update.
@Self-Hosting-Group thank you for your contribution. Since I was tagged on this PR, I have the following comments:
- I'm not the miniupnp maintainer, I don't think I ever contributed to it actually.
- 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.
- I may be wrong here, but I thought it's encouraged to squash the commits in a PR to a single commit.
- While the PKG_VERSION is updated, the PKG_RELEASE is not reset to 1.
- I feel that the uci-defaults script to migrate the old setting a a new one would be welcome.
- Should this also not be linked from a corresponding PR in the luci-app to effect the change of settings?
@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: 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.