Update the Quarkus images to multi-archs variants

[cescoffier]

• the builder images are now: quarkusubi-quarkus-graalvmce-builder-image and quarkusubi-quarkus-mandrel-builder-image. Both at multi-archs (AMD64 and ARM64).
• the s2i images are now: quarkusubi-quarkus-native-binary-s2i:2.0 and quarkusubi-quarkus-graalvmce-s2i
• the base images are now: quarkusquarkus-micro-image:2.0 and quarkusquarkus-distroless-image:2.0

The commit also updates to ubi 8.6 and the latest openjdk images.

[cescoffier]

Re-triggered the CI as .... I forgot to make the new images public (I know, I know...)

[quarkus-bot]

Failing Jobs - Building e4bdddf

Status	Name	Step	Failures	Logs	Raw logs
✔️	JVM Tests - JDK 11
✖	JVM Tests - JDK 17	Build	Failures	Logs	Raw logs
✔️	JVM Tests - JDK 18
✖	Quickstarts Compilation - JDK 17	Compile Quickstarts	Failures	Logs	Raw logs

Full information is available in the Build summary check run.

Failures

⚙️ JVM Tests - JDK 17 #

- Failing: integration-tests/oidc-code-flow 

📦 integration-tests/oidc-code-flow

✖ io.quarkus.it.keycloak.CodeFlowTest.testTokenAutoRefresh line 516 - More details - Source on GitHub

com.gargoylesoftware.htmlunit.FailingHttpStatusCodeException: 401 Unauthorized for http://localhost:8081/tenant-autorefresh
	at com.gargoylesoftware.htmlunit.WebClient.throwFailingHttpStatusCodeExceptionIfNecessary(WebClient.java:701)
	at com.gargoylesoftware.htmlunit.WebClient.getPage(WebClient.java:461)

---

⚙️ Quickstarts Compilation - JDK 17 #

- Failing: optaplanner-quickstart 

📦 optaplanner-quickstart

✖ Failed to execute goal io.quarkus:quarkus-maven-plugin:999-SNAPSHOT:build (default) on project optaplanner-quickstart: Failed to build quarkus application

[gsmet]

@cescoffier that's something we want for 2.13 or not?

[cescoffier]

@gsmet no, we need to have some bake time. These images are very different (use jdock, different modules...).

I waited for the 2.13 branch to be created to open that PR.

[rsvoboda]

Update to ubi-minimal:8.6 and openjdk-17/11-runtime:1.14 should imho go into 2.13 branch.

We can't easily backport this one, I can prepare PR today or tmr.

@cescoffier / @gsmet do you agree?

[gsmet]

Probably yes. I will let @cescoffier comment though as I'm not very aware of how safe that would be.

[rsvoboda]

Created #28362, let's see how CI goes and what Clement says.