Bump buildx and fix file finalizer breaking the stdout fix

[ulyssessouza]

- What I did
Replaced os.File for an interface in containerd/console (ulyssessouza/console@f652dc3) so that can be used by docker/buildx (ulyssessouza/buildx@5941345) and docker/app

- How I did it
Fork and override of the repos in Gopkg.toml

- How to verify it
Check that the broken output fix still working by repeating a docker app build exhaustively.

- Description for the changelog
Use a file interface from containerd/console to pass to buildx's printer

- A picture of a cute animal (not mandatory)

[thaJeztah]

/cc @tonistiigi @tiborvass

[thaJeztah]

@ulyssessouza is this the only change in the fork? ulyssessouza/buildx@5941345

[ulyssessouza]

@thaJeztah In buildx, yes. But there is another fork. The containerd/console with ulyssessouza/console@f652dc3
I'll propose a PR on each repo.
I also think this PR could be merged after the merges (if the case) in the upstream repos to avoid the override to my repo.

The intent of this PR is first to validate the approach.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #779 into master will decrease coverage by 0.09%.
The diff coverage is 64.7%.

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##           master     #779     +/-   ##
=========================================
- Coverage   70.13%   70.03%   -0.1%     
=========================================
  Files          67       67             
  Lines        3676     3684      +8     
=========================================
+ Hits         2578     2580      +2     
- Misses        753      759      +6     
  Partials      345      345

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
internal/commands/build/build.go	60.99% <64.7%> (-1.24%)	⬇️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 3064a5d...864442b. Read the comment docs.

[thaJeztah]

Thanks for clarifying; yes we should avoid forks if possible

[ndeloof]

I like the approach of offering a "consumer" counterpart for a PR to upstream project, which helps better unterstand the needs and if fix is actually relevant.
Maybe we should agree on a label/PR prefix/comment for such scenario.
Typically PR description could explicitely claim "This demonstrate containerd#123" DO NOT MERGE

[aiordache]

LGTM

[silvin-lubecki]

@ulyssessouza I wonder if it's ok that so many dependencies were updated? 🤔

[ulyssessouza]

@silvin-lubecki After reviewing, that looks like it's a side-effect of the bumps on buildx and containerd.

[silvin-lubecki]

LGTM