package/containerd-bin: update hash

[eiffel-fl]

Hi.

I had troubles building minikube ISO with containerd-bin because its hash is not good.
So, I updated it.
Can you please check if you have the problem on your side?

Best regards.

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @eiffel-fl. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes member to verify that this patch is reasonable to test. If it is, they should reply with /ok-to-test on its own line. Until that is done, I will not automatically test new commits in this PR, but the usual testing commands by org members will still work. Regular contributors should join the org to skip this step.

Once the patch is verified, the new status will be reflected by the ok-to-test label.

I understand the commands that are listed here.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: eiffel-fl
To complete the pull request process, please assign spowelljr after the PR has been reviewed.
You can assign the PR to them by writing /assign @spowelljr in a comment when ready.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[eiffel-fl]

cc @afbjorklund

[minikube-bot]

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

[afbjorklund]

The problem is upstream.

• containerd package has the same tarball checksum problems as others #13193

[eiffel-fl]

Hum sad...
Thank you for pointing it to me.

Nonetheless, what about using the same way of getting as upstream?
If I understood correctly, they first clone the containerd repo at v1.6.2 and creates the archive locally.
Maybe by doing so they avoid the problem you are facing?

[eiffel-fl]

I will close it to avoid noise as my contribution will, sadly, not solve the problem but we can still discuss on how to find a solution to this problem.

[afbjorklund]

containerd 1.4 and 1.6 don't have the problem

But otherwise upstream use the same tarball hashes

https://github.com/buildroot/buildroot/blob/2e49ff10202e28a8dc942bfe11d7a623aca0bf6c/package/containerd/containerd.hash

[eiffel-fl]

But otherwise upstream use the same tarball hashes

My hypothesis is they are not impacted by the bug we hit because they create the tarball themselves from the git repo instead of directly get the tarball.

[afbjorklund]

Not sure what you mean, the only difference is that they have proper tarball naming.

The reason why they are not affected is that containerd 1.6 changed from the short hash to the long hash.

[eiffel-fl]

The reason why they are not affected is that containerd 1.6 changed from the short hash to the long hash.

What is this short vs long hash difference?
Can you please give me a link to have a better understanding?

[afbjorklund]

• including git attributes in "vendor" makes archive checksum change containerd/containerd#6387