Remove kubeadm >=1.32 dependency from crictl

[saschagrunert]

What type of PR is this?

/kind feature

What this PR does / why we need it:

The merge of kubernetes/kubernetes#124685 will make kubeadm work without crictl. We now reflect that in the packaging as well as defined in kubernetes/kubeadm#3064.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:

Refers to kubernetes/kubeadm#3064

Special notes for your reviewer:

cc @neolit123 @carlory

Does this PR introduce a user-facing change?

Make kubeadm >= 1.32 independent from crictl due to https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/124685

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: saschagrunert

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

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• cmd/krel/OWNERS [saschagrunert]

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

[carlory]

/hold

for the next release cycle (1.32)

[saschagrunert]

/hold

for the next release cycle (1.32)

I changed the versions so we may not need the hold :)

[carlory]

Okay, the title is enough to tell us when it should be merged.
I add a lifecycle/frozen to avoid it being closed by the bot due to inactivity.

/hold cancel
/lifecycle frozen

[k8s-ci-robot]

@carlory: The lifecycle/frozen label cannot be applied to Pull Requests.

In response to this:

Okay, the title is enough to tell us when it should be merged. IMO, The do-not-merged/hold label makes it clear that it should not be merged until the hold is removed.

I add a lifecycle/frozen to avoid it being closed by the bot due to inactivity.

/hold cancel
/lifecycle frozen

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-sigs/prow repository.

[xmudrii]

@saschagrunert @carlory If we're confident that the referenced k/k PRs will be merged, we can merge this PR now (once the comment I left is resolved). This change will be only applied on package versions starting from 1.32.0, earlier version are unaffected.

[carlory]

/cc @neolit123 @pacoxu

[neolit123]

/hold
until .32

the frozen label is for issues only.

[neolit123]

@saschagrunert @carlory If we're confident that the referenced k/k PRs will be merged, we can merge this PR now (once the comment I left is resolved). This change will be only applied on package versions starting from 1.32.0, earlier version are unaffected.

sorry missed the comment. yes, but we should wait until the k/k PR and k/website changes merge at least.
also this assume we have confidence that we can drop the dependency exactly at 1.32.

we can also actually wait for 1.32 and see if there is any negative feedback about it during the 1.31 cycle.

[saschagrunert]

@neolit123 @kubernetes/release-managers can we unhold this?

[neolit123]

SGTM, thanks
/hold cancel

[neolit123]

/lgtm