Revert "passt: Build and publish Passt binding CNI image"

[RamLavi]

What this PR does / why we need it:
This reverts commit 23eed84.

The passt solution was pivoted from passt binding to l2-bridge which does not require a DS deploying its binary.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...) format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):
Fixes #

Special notes for your reviewer:

Release note:

Remove Passt binding CNI image

[kubevirt-bot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign maiqueb for approval. For more information see the Kubernetes Code Review Process.

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

[oshoval]

once you do that, you will need please to adapt to managedTap (i have a PR about it, which still need some bit to be changed)

and to adapt CNAO to be able to use managedTap (by patching kuebvirt CR)
and of course to remove all passt relevant code from CNAO please

[RamLavi]

once you do that, you will need please to adapt to managedTap (i have a PR about it, which still need some bit to be changed)

and to adapt CNAO to be able to use managedTap (by patching kuebvirt CR) and of course to remove all passt relevant code from CNAO please

So this PR is blocked by #73 right?

[oshoval]

Yep

[RamLavi]

once you do that, you will need please to adapt to managedTap (i have a PR about it, which still need some bit to be changed)

and to adapt CNAO to be able to use managedTap (by patching kuebvirt CR) and of course to remove all passt relevant code from CNAO please

anything to do on HCO, or you already did that part?

[oshoval]

yep, HCO is done already wrt using l2bridge (we don't have generic name nowhere yet)

[oshoval]

ah HCO need to remove passt, this wasnt done
it can be done orthogonal to CNAO / ipam please

[RamLavi]

@oshoval do we have anything to do with the disk space issue on CI?

[oshoval]

#80 was merged
so now just rebase please (retest is not enough)

[maiqueb]

/lgtm @qinqon thoughts ?

[oshoval]

the right flow will be first to make sure #73 lands on CNAO safely imo
else we miss stuff

first good to switch to managedTap all over and then to remove passt
else it is risky to stall / break things a bit

[qinqon]

We are not cosuming this on CNAO until we don't label so we good.

[qinqon]

/lgtm

[oshoval]

but we will issue now a label because we need it to adapt CNAO for managedTap and see all is good
and it will break unless all is done on one step, which isn't good to enforce that

/hold
i think it is wrong
if you want remove the hold

[oshoval]

/hold cancel

since it is not approved no need hold, but i still think it is wrong

[qinqon]

/hold

again

[oshoval]

I would also say it is best to remove this please from right to left
i.e if we have
IPAM CNAO x y z (where each element uses the previous)
then removal order is Z down to IPAM

EDIT - note that some parts of that might need to be done at once.
The above is the 2nd phase, as agreed offline between Miguel and Quique, first phase is to adapt
CNAO to use managedTap please