luci-app-upnp: Update plugin title/menu to include PCP as supported

[Self-Hosting-Group]

and revise wording

• Revise wording, remove redundancies and mention IPv6 limitations
• Mention UPnP IGD as UPnP is probably not specific enough
• Include current wording in LUCI_TITLE for easy finding
• Fix 4 multiple failing strings in translations and remove old comments

Updated title: UPnP IGD & PCP/NAT-PMP Service
Current title: Universal Plug & Play
Updated menu option: UPnP IGD & PCP/NAT-PMP
Current menu option: UPnP
Updated wording: port forwards (used in Network -> Firewall)
Current wording: redirects

Port Control Protocol (PCP) is the successor to NAT-PMP and has similar
protocol concepts and packet formats, but adds IPv6 support.
PCP standard:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6887
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Control_Protocol
NAT-PMP std. (see 9.1 Simplicity - 9.3 for some diff. to UPnP IGD):
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6886
Port Mapping Protocols Overview:
https://github.com/Self-Hosting-Group/wiki/wiki/Port-Mapping-Protocols-Overview

[stokito]

Please update the upnp.pot file (instruction) and also change all the translation keys (.po).
Another problem is that existing tutorials "How to Enable UPNP on OpenWRT" will be outdated. Inexperienced users like gammers may search for the specific menu item but it was renamed.

JFYI: The miniupnpd can be compiled without NAT-PMP/PCP but can't be compiled without the UPnP.

It makes sense to mention the NAT-PMP/PCP in the package description to improve search for it.

[systemcrash]

The default build of miniupnpd has NAT-PMP/PCP baked in, correct? If so then I think we can say this is ready and merge it.

[stokito]

NAT-PMP/PCP baked in, correct

yes

41 file changed, many questionable changes.
I don't know if it worth it.

[systemcrash]

Only in exceptional cases. If wording changes, it's a strong signal that should also happen for i18n. Retranslation is currently the only way to ensure this.

…

You might just rename the i18n keys. Now the rea lost

[systemcrash]

Ampersand is fine. It's space efficient and is synonymous. Leave it be 😆

[Self-Hosting-Group]

Ampersand is fine. It's space efficient and is synonymous. Leave it be 😆

Should we use an ampersand for the title/description or should we use , or and there?

[systemcrash]

Ampersand is fine. It's space efficient and is synonymous. Leave it be 😆

Should we use an ampersand for the title/description or should we use , or and there?

The sense of an ampersand is generally for coupled things, not to chain unrelated things together to save space. Leave the ampersand. Comma makes it seem like two unrelated things are in the same package.

[hnyman]

The commit will fail formalities...
No committer name, no signed-off-by line

[Self-Hosting-Group]

Should we keep MiniUPnPd ACLs and MiniUPnPd settings or the simpler Service ACLs and Service Settings or just Settings? An update of the documentation is planned.

[systemcrash]

Should we keep MiniUPnPd ACLs and MiniUPnPd settings or the simpler Service ACLs and Service Settings or just Settings? An update of the documentation is planned.

Service ACLs and Service Settings sits well with me, unless we must segregate settings based on which RFC we are talking about here.

Just commit subject and SOB to be fixed then.

[github-advanced-security]

This pull request sets up GitHub code scanning for this repository. Once the scans have completed and the checks have passed, the analysis results for this pull request branch will appear on this overview. Once you merge this pull request, the 'Security' tab will show more code scanning analysis results (for example, for the default branch). Depending on your configuration and choice of analysis tool, future pull requests will be annotated with code scanning analysis results. For more information about GitHub code scanning, check out the documentation.

[Self-Hosting-Group]

PR updated, rebased on recently synced translations, removed clean_ruleset... description updates for now and updated title and description of PR as it is now more comprehensive. Can the formality check be skipped because the contact email is going to change it's domain?

[stokito]

As far I understood the Sign-off author is like a sign on a legal document. Thus you must sign it with a real name.
A few PRs that weren't merged because author doesn't want to expose it's name and email.
I hope this policy will be changed because some authors may not just value their privacy but it may be dangerous for them.
Anyway, if you can't set the real name then I or someone else can make the same PR but authored with own name. I hope you won't be resentful

[Self-Hosting-Group]

As far I understood the Sign-off author is like a sign on a legal document. Thus you must sign it with a real name. A few PRs that weren't merged because author doesn't want to expose it's name and email. I hope this policy will be changed because some authors may not just value their privacy but it may be dangerous for them. Anyway, if you can't set the real name then I or someone else can make the same PR but authored with own name. I hope you won't be resentful

Thank you for your detailed reply. Yes, the PR can be done by someone else. The PR has been rebased with the synchronised translations and unifies 3 more strings (internal->client) without the need for new strings to be translated.

IMHO I think contributor checks, in the form of strict enforcement of formality checks as opposed to functionality checks, unnecessarily restrict people from contributing without any real benefit (e.g. not PGP signed). The Linux community rule talks about a known identity that allows pseudonyms and I think the patches come there more indirectly and it's probably a more critical piece of software.
Linux kernel documentation update of submitting-patches.rst

[systemcrash]

The Linux community rule talks about a known identity that allows pseudonyms and I think the patches come there more indirectly and it's probably a more critical piece of software. Linux kernel documentation update of submitting-patches.rst

And those are the checks performed in the openwrt repos; identity, not Real Name. The links talk about because the sign-off needed to be something we could check back with. The issue in this case is the SOB line. Because not everyone uses github, I imagine this is why the recourse necessary to have a working email - "to check back with", however horrific that wording may be: a means of contacting the developer.

[systemcrash]

OK

[Self-Hosting-Group]

OK

Thank you very much. Perhaps a reference to this could be included in the resulting new PR.
Once merged, the updated documentation can be found here:
https://openwrt.org/docs/guide-user/firewall/fw3_configurations/upnp_igd_pcp_nat_pmp_service

The PR can be updated again on request so that the latest translations are not lost.