[Feature] AKSEE - include the default volume store local path provisioner with AKSEE and not rely on OSS dependency

[ivanthelad]

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Local path provisioner should be preinstalled as an AKSEE binary.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/aks/hybrid/aks-edge-howto-use-storage-local-path

Its cumbersome and error prone when installing AKSEE onsite to have to depend on an upstream oss project. theres no guarantee that file will be present during installation time
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Azure/AKS-Edge/main/samples/storage/local-path-provisioner/local-path-storage.yaml

Describe the solution you'd like
Local path provisioner should be preinstalled as an AKSEE binary.

Describe alternatives you've considered
use the documented approach. this may break in a locked down environment. its may also break automation if this file is not there.

Additional context
Add any other context or screenshots about the feature request here.

[ivanthelad]

during an offline installation. The current documented procedure results in images such as line 68 https://github.com/Azure/AKS-Edge/blob/main/samples/storage/local-path-provisioner/local-path-storage.yaml#L68

where it reference a public image. this is not always accessible on offline installations. the customer needs to modify the yaml and deliver their own images somehow.
currently use offline available with "ctr images import"

[SummerSmith]

Hi @ivanthelad , as you noted, we do not currently support local path provisioner. We will take this feature request into considerations during our next planning period. Thank you for the feedback!

[scholz]

Hi @SummerSmith , Ivan was kind enough to submit this enhancement request on our behalf, so I just wanted to follow up. We've since implemented a solution on our side by packaging the local path provisioner YAML with the container in our offline install. We then install it right after AKSEE during the base installation of our Windows IoT industrial PC.

Because of this, we’ve deprioritized the request on our end, so feel free to close it if needed. That said, we still think it would be a valuable addition—especially since it could simplify things for the team managing the extra package and pipeline on the user side. Just wanted to share this feedback in case it helps prioritize other requests. 😊

Thanks again!