feat: initial version of ubi-base-stack

[mhdawson]

• Based on approach in existing paketo stacks
• Used to create stack images used for initial testing of https://github.com/paketo-community/ubi-nodejs-extension
• Still includes hard code quay locations used for manual publishing to be replace by publishing in docker with correct namespace
• Differes from existing stacks in that we need to publish a number of run images instead of just 1 as the extension selects which run image to rebase the application on top of intead of extending a single run image.

Summary

Use Cases

Checklist

• [x] I have viewed, signed, and submitted the Contributor License Agreement.
• [x] I have linked issue(s) that this PR should close using keywords or the Github UI (See docs)
• [x] I have added an integration test, if necessary.
• [x] I have reviewed the styleguide for guidance on my code quality.
• [x] I'm happy with the commit history on this PR (I have rebased/squashed as needed).

[mhdawson]

There are many changes needed to get this into the same form as the other stacks.

It is based on the pattern used for existing stack but the need to build multiple run images when using extensions means that we had to modify the existing patten to handle that. We've done that by duplicating the create script along with the stack directories, one for each run image needed as well one for the base stacks that will be specified in the builder itself.

This is what we used to generate the images that I used in the instructions for testing out the Node.js ubi extension in - https://github.com/paketo-community/ubi-nodejs-extension#usage.

Ideally we could work with somebody who worked on implementing the existing stacks so that we can discuss how best to handle the need for multiple run images and modifying to publish into the paketo docker namespace instead of manually pushing into quay in my namespace which I used as a temporary measure.

[sophiewigmore]

I'll take a look at this soon!

[mhdawson]

@sophiewigmore I think I've updated to address all of your original suggestions/comments and have created the the initial worflows based on our discusison today.

I think I'll need to be able to run the workflows to be able to figure out what's not right. For example I'm hoping the download action will let me specify the name used for the download using path but I'm not sure from the documentation.

Can you take a look at the updates and let me know what else I should update or do before the next step of landing/running to test out?

[mhdawson]

@sophiewigmore realized I could test these actions in my own repo since unlike others I've worked on recently they don't depend on issues or PRs from the main repo.

From that testing I fixed up some problems and the action ran to completion and create the release in my repo. You can see the succesfull action run here - https://github.com/mhdawson/ubi-base-stack/actions/runs/5159508696

So at this point I'm a lot more confident that the actions are correct.

[sophiewigmore]

This is looking good, I checked out the workflow run you linked. I'll put my approval on since I'm heading out for the day shortly so you can merge this in when you are ready so you're not blocked on workflow development, however I'd like to see Arjun's comment addressed as well before we merge in. I think in subsequent PRs we'll still need to:

• add USN polling mechanism back in
• add some tests against the stack images, and checks that will run against PRs
• flesh out the README with some more context
• add publishing workflow
• probably some other things that we'll think of as we go :D

[mhdawson]

@arjun024 @sophiewigmore I think I've now addressed all of the comments.

[sophiewigmore]

@arjun024 waiting to merge until we have a 👍 from you as well