Distro package release

[crazy-max]

Atm following distro packages matrix is in place in this repo:

Distro	Release	Filename
centos	7	docker-buildx-plugin-0.8.1-centos7.x86_64.rpm
centos	8	docker-buildx-plugin-0.8.1-centos8.x86_64.rpm
fedora	33	docker-buildx-plugin-0.8.1-fedora33.x86_64.rpm
fedora	34	docker-buildx-plugin-0.8.1-fedora34.x86_64.rpm
fedora	35	docker-buildx-plugin-0.8.1-fedora35.x86_64.rpm
fedora	36	docker-buildx-plugin-0.8.1-fedora36.x86_64.rpm
debian	10	docker-buildx-plugin_0.8.1-debian10_amd64.deb
debian	11	docker-buildx-plugin_0.8.1-debian11_amd64.deb
alpine	r0	docker-buildx-plugin_0.8.1-r0_x86_64.apk
raspbian	10	docker-buildx-plugin_0.8.1-raspbian10_amd64.deb
raspbian	11	docker-buildx-plugin_0.8.1-raspbian11_amd64.deb
ubuntu	1804	docker-buildx-plugin_0.8.1-ubuntu1804_amd64.deb
ubuntu	2004	docker-buildx-plugin_0.8.1-ubuntu2004_amd64.deb
ubuntu	2110	docker-buildx-plugin_0.8.1-ubuntu2110_amd64.deb
ubuntu	2204	docker-buildx-plugin_0.8.1-ubuntu2204_amd64.deb

only x86_64 packages are displayed in this table as an example but we support more platforms: https://github.com/docker/buildx-packaging/blob/91a2368ddb77e860d650d12453ef8af0ee3ef7f1/docker-bake.hcl#L114-L120

@thaJeztah Looking at this issue docker/for-linux#1315 I guess the current behavior here is correct. Should we align docker-ce-packaging and containerd-package repos with this release scheme?

[thaJeztah]

Things to look for;

• current packages don't have a $pkgRevision in them; sounds like it's useful to have so that we can do a packaging-only build (e.g. $pkgRevision=1 or $pkgRevision=2)
• what's the -r0 suffix in the .apk package?
• we should try what the version looks like for a pre-release (0.10.0-rc2) and make sure it uses tilde (~) not hyphen (-) for the pre-release suffix
• do we know if _<arch> vs .<arch> is something we control, or is that standard convention / automatic difference between rpm and deb ?
• probably we should discuss wether or not to include distro codename (for debian / ubuntu). They're not "needed", but (see the issue in docker-ce-packaging), we tend to refer to distro versions sometimes using their codename ("debian bullseye") sometimes using version ("debian 11"). This can be confusing (I for one always have to look up "oh, what version was that?"), so having both in the name could be useful for that
• formatting of the ubuntu versions (1804 vs 18.04; see [master] deb: cleanup makefile, remove unused GITCOMMIT, and pass VERSION_ID through Dockerfile docker-ce-packaging#817 (comment))
• if we include both codename and version and distro, wether or not to include separators (ubuntu.22.10~kinetic) and what separator to use; https://github.com/docker/docker-ce-packaging/blob/6e7d52709586ca25e53ce46fc61b35bf9385a7a0/deb/build-deb#L50-L75