Move up xpkg build command to crossplane

[lsviben]

Description of your changes

Migrates the up xpkg build command to Crossplane as part of the devEx improvements.

Some notes about the PR for the reviewers:
Most of the PR is just a copy of the https://github.com/upbound/up/internal/pkg/xpkg to internal/xpkg/v2 (with some unused files removed, non build related), and the copy is in the first commit. The rest of the commits are adjusting the code to Crossplane linting, adding functions to the build, and trying to make it more Crossplane then Upbound (mostly in comments).

I skipped for now the push command as it has a lot of Upbound specific code, like authenticating and creating repositories, so I felt that that deserved a separate, more readable PR, where some of this code would be made less Upbound-specific.

Other commands like dep init will be added separately.

Also I skipped the alpha batch and xpextract commands as they are alpha. We could add those later on.

How this interacts with the existing commands and code in Crossplane

As we already have a build/push commands in crossplane(and a couple more), and there is very similar code in internal/xpkg initially I tried to merge the code from up to that (while keeping the commands separate). And in most cases its ok as it seems that both share the same roots. But it got complicated fast because up had a lot of changes on the original code, and the Crossplane code had also its changes, so it was a nightmare to merge.

Thats why the up xpkg code was moved into v2, as it is anyway planned in the future to replace the current Crossplane commands, due to having a richer feature set. So there will be duplicated code in v2, but its much simpler that way, and we can remove v1 at one point.

Which command is added

build:
Improved version of the current Crossplane build which allows for packing the manifest togather with the controller/function image and examples.

Further improvements

There is a bunch of stuff that can still be done here but I wanted to keep this already big PR simpler:

• deprecating the current build command
• deduplication of code between v1 and v2 internal/xpkg (partially done)
• adding a pretty logger like the one up uses
• adding other commands in up xpkg

Fixes #4657

I have:

• Read and followed Crossplane's contribution process.
• Added or updated unit and E2E tests for my change.
• Run make reviewable to ensure this PR is ready for review.
• [ ] Added backport release-x.y labels to auto-backport this PR, if necessary.
• [] Opened a PR updating the docs, if necessary.
  Docs will be covered in Improve discoverability (add docs and pointers) for installing Crossplane CLI #4671

How was this tested

Just ran the command for various packages:

Commands:
  build configuration
    Build a Configuration package.

  build provider
    Build a Provider package.

  build function
    Build a Function package.

  install configuration <package> [<name>]
    Install a Configuration package.

  install provider <package> [<name>]
    Install a Provider package.

  update configuration <name> <tag>
    Update a Configuration package.

  update provider <name> <tag>
    Update a Provider package.

  push configuration <tag>
    Push a Configuration package.

  push provider <tag>
    Push a Provider package.

  xpkg build
    Build a package, by default from the current directory.

Run "kubectl crossplane <command> --help" for more information on a command.

~/go/test/function-dummy (main) $ kubectl crossplane xpkg build -f package/ --controller=provider-dummy:0.1.0
xpkg saved to /home/lovro/go/test/function-dummy/package/function-dummy-303029fb9515.xpkg

[lsviben]

codecov/project Failing after 1s — 65.51% (-4.26%) compared to 89b5fe5

Looks like the code coverage is failing as the copied over code is not that well tested. I try to add some tests there

[tnthornton]

I'm really excited to see this effort getting kicked off. Given my context for these changes over in upbound/up, I mostly targeted the following:

• Did we bring over more than we needed to (for example dep related functionality and that ties into xpls)?
• Do we want to make some of the same assumptions here that were made in upbound/up?

My comments below are all related to that. Let me know if you have any questions or if there is other context I can provide 👍

[lsviben]

I'm really excited to see this effort getting kicked off. Given my context for these changes over in upbound/up, I mostly targeted the following:

• Did we bring over more than we needed to (for example dep related functionality and that ties into xpls)?
• Do we want to make some of the same assumptions here that were made in upbound/up?

My comments below are all related to that. Let me know if you have any questions or if there is other context I can provide 👍

Thanks for taking the time to review @tnthornton !

I initially started with adding all the commands, but then removed some because they are alpha (batch and xpextract), then push as I think we need to make it a bit less Upbound-centric. So I was left with these 3.

Looking at it now again, and after the discussion on the SIG meeting, where we confirmed that the most important are build and push I feel like its a good idea to drop init and dep from this PR to make it simpler. Especially dep which has a lot of code, and is only usefull when we add xpls. So ill do that

[lsviben]

Ok, made the following changes:

• Removed dep, init and related code from
• Removed pterm
• Removed alpha gate
• Bumpred crossplane runtime to include the Lintable interface, which we need for deduplicating the linter stuff. And deduplicated it.

[phisco]

Checked the output of this against the one from up and it's exactly the same as expected:
https://explore.ggcr.dev/?image=docker.io/phisco/test:v0.0.0-provider-nop-with-up
https://explore.ggcr.dev/?image=docker.io/phisco/test:v0.0.0-provider-nop-with-crank

We can definitely refactor it further, but as an starting point and initial porting of the up functionalities, I'd say it's ok 👍

[haarchri]

LGTM - thanks

test successful done!
./crank xpkg build --ignore="init/*.yaml,kind-config.yaml" --output=test.xpkg

[haarchri]

is this something we need here ?

[jastang]

given this is used to configure ProviderConfig functionality in console.upbound.io, probably not. It does imply that any provider in the future that wants to take advantage of that functionality would have to be built with up, which is the case today.

[lsviben]

Removed the auth extension option then. We can leave this to be up specific