Add alpine-sh and alpine-bash container images

[tiagolobocastro]

ci: update to accommodate new images

Signed-off-by: Tiago Castro <tiagolobocastro@gmail.com>

---

feat: add new tiny container images

Adds alpine-sh and alpine-bash which are minimalist images
These can be useful for small init containers

Signed-off-by: Tiago Castro <tiagolobocastro@gmail.com>

---

feat: support multiple images

Support for multiple images (dockerfiles) during the make process
Ensures make test does not leave exited containers
Add make clean to delete buildx builder
Removes the push scripts as those are no longer used

Signed-off-by: Tiago Castro <tiagolobocastro@gmail.com>

[tiagolobocastro]

@Abhinandan-Purkait @niladrih comments on the names please :D

[niladrih]

IMO, the names shouldn't be tied to their purpose on the kubernetes' 'machine', i.e. as initContainers. It should be tied to the key libs, packages it contains. Here we don't have an entrypoint, or cmd, so we can't tie the name to that.
Maybe..

• for the bash one, it could be alpine-bash or bash-musl(this will make it clear that it uses busybox, musl and has bash)
• for the sh one, it's not necessarily just for sh, it's a default alpine, with busybox, etc. Maybe alpine. But with that name, it's confusing if we have just taken an alpine an retagged it with some other version.

Do we need the init-sh container? Should the bash one be enough for our use-cases at the moment? It adds another container to our helm chart and it saves very little space after we optimise it down.

[tiagolobocastro]

IMO, the names shouldn't be tied to their purpose on the kubernetes' 'machine', i.e. as initContainers. It should be tied to the key libs, packages it contains. Here we don't have an entrypoint, or cmd, so we can't tie the name to that. Maybe..

hmm I'm not sure, calling it simply by the names of the packages feels somewhat incomplete.
That being said, I'm ok with alpine and alpine-bash as it's pretty clear what it is from the name, wdyt?

Do we need the init-sh container? Should the bash one be enough for our use-cases at the moment? It adds another container to our helm chart and it saves very little space after we optimise it down.

The init-sh container is very simple to add since we adding the bash one, there's no cost of adding it so seemed a no brainer.

[niladrih]

I am okay with it.

What about helper-bash? and that would change the old one to helper-linux-utils?

[tiagolobocastro]

I am okay with it.

What about helper-bash? and that would change the old one to helper-linux-utils?

I guess so, though again we'd be adding purpose to the name :)
I'd prefer alpine-bash and keep linux-utils as is for now. In the future we can come up with better name for the linux-utils since it has a lot more than just the linux-utils.

[niladrih]

This'll require the image repositories to be created. I can take it up for docker.io, need a hand with quay. I'll try to see if my GitHub auth lets me work on ghcr.