feat: onboard ubuntu/jdk rock

[vpa1977]

• I have signed the CLA?
• I am following the CONTRIBUTING guidelines

Ping the @canonical/rocks team.

---

Description

This PR onboards ubuntu/jdk rock.

Related issues

#632

---

Picture of a cool rock:

[vpa1977]

I am not sure if we want to name chiselled and noble-based rocks differently. At the moment X-A.B rocks are chiselled ones, and X-full-A.B are rocks with Ubuntu base.
Alternatively I can use jdk for the chiselled images and jdk-full for the images with Noble base.

[zhijie-yang]

I'd suggest onboarding them as jdk and jdk-full. AFAIK, the Kubeflow team uses this pattern (see their repo). Looping @cjdcordeiro in for a further suggestion.

[alesancor1]

Is there any reason why we need a full Ubuntu rock? (not bare base essentially)

[vpa1977]

Is there any reason why we need a full Ubuntu rock? (not bare base essentially)

A supported base for deploying something that expects a normal Linux environment, e.g. development containers.

[vpa1977]

I'd suggest onboarding them as jdk and jdk-full. AFAIK, the Kubeflow team uses this pattern (see their repo). Looping @cjdcordeiro in for a further suggestion.

Thank you! I have split #636 for the full images.

[cjdcordeiro]

I think this needs further discussion.

The jdk image falls into the SDK category, for which @zhijie-yang already has created a baseline of tools and utilities that should be shipped inside, thus allowing us to proceed with a bare base.

As for the full image. I get that there will be cases where additional modules/libraries are needed for the users' use cases. It's the same with Python, Ruby, or any other runtime image. We won't ever be able to have 100% coverage for all possible use cases, and thus recommend users to use our image as a base, and build their own from it. Having said that, I understand there might still be an argument to justify having different flavour of the same image, but this would be a new thing for us and we should discuss it in details before introducing such a pattern.

[vpa1977]

The jdk image falls into the SDK category, for which @zhijie-yang already has created a baseline of tools and utilities that should be shipped inside, thus allowing us to proceed with a bare base.

A PR with sample canonical/golang-rock#4

[vpa1977]

@cjdcordeiro @zhijie-yang I have made a PR that adds dev rock dependencies. Would it be possible to take a look?
canonical/jdk-rock#8