miniupnpc: 2.2.7 -> 2.2.8 , support static build

[nagy]

Description of changes

New release

https://github.com/miniupnp/miniupnp/releases/tag/miniupnpc_2_2_8

and support building with pkgsStatic.

Things done

• Built on platform(s)
  • x86_64-linux
  • aarch64-linux
  • x86_64-darwin
  • aarch64-darwin
• For non-Linux: Is sandboxing enabled in nix.conf? (See Nix manual)
  • sandbox = relaxed
  • sandbox = true
• Tested, as applicable:
  • NixOS test(s) (look inside nixos/tests)
  • and/or package tests
  • or, for functions and "core" functionality, tests in lib/tests or pkgs/test
  • made sure NixOS tests are linked to the relevant packages
• Tested compilation of all packages that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage
• Tested basic functionality of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
• 24.11 Release Notes (or backporting 23.11 and 24.05 Release notes)
  • (Package updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is major or breaking
  • (Module updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is significant
  • (Module addition) Added a release notes entry if adding a new NixOS module
• Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

---

Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.

[fpletz]

LGTM. Confirmed that the removed postInstall fixes are not necessary anymore.

[K900]

This is an API break: miniupnp/miniupnp#758

Which is likely to affect most downstreams. Reverting until addressed in some way.

[nagy]

Should we introduce a miniupnpc_2_2_7 package and call affected packages with that?

[K900]

I genuinely don't know, it's touching a pretty core part of the API, so someone needs to investigate the real impact and see if the affected packages can be patched. If not, maybe we should just hold off on updating this.

[emilazy]

I would be interested in triaging and patching stuff here, including sending stuff upstream. Going by https://github.com/transmission/transmission/pull/6907/files#diff-5631965d253feb0720bcea80f285ac7e3fb20818fe46fc846706b3dba8e9b32c, it’s just a matter of adding NULL, 0 to the argument list. A shame that upstream doesn’t seem to priority API stability even for a trivial case like this, though.

[K900]

Have fun, I guess. I honestly don't care which way we go as long as we don't break everything.

[emilazy]

I’ve started on this.

[emilazy]

Done: #326402