🌱 cleanup: replace custom signal handling with apiserver.SetupSignalContext as they are identical

[s-z-z]

I found that the pkg/manager/signals package is identical to the code in k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/server/.

The earliest commit comes from kubernetes/kubernetes#50439.

I think we should use it directly instead of copying it, so I propose cleaning it up.

Additionally, there's a divergence trend. In k/k: SetupSignalHandler returns a channel, while SetupSignalContext returns a context.

Moreover, the current PR only implements an alias-like redirection.

Should we directly remove the signals package and replace all signals.SetupSignalHandler references with ctrl.SetupSignalHandler, performing the redirection only once in alias.go? If allowed, I can further streamline it.

[k8s-ci-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: s-z-z
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign vincepri for approval. For more information see the 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

[k8s-ci-robot]

Hi @s-z-z. Thanks for your PR.

I'm waiting for a kubernetes-sigs 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-sigs/prow repository.

[sbueringer]

I honestly prefer the copy over introducing a dependency to the apiserver code

[s-z-z]

Hi, thanks for your reply.
apiserver is already a dependency of cr; this PR doesn't add new packages.

[sbueringer]

Yes, but we would now depend on this code from the apiserver and we have 0 control over or visibility into how it changes over time