feat: migrate image building to buildx

[salasberryfin]

What this PR does / why we need it:

A few notes on the changes required for moving to buildx for image building and provenance attestation (thanks @alexander-demicev for the help):

• The former image creation mechanism was based on creating different images for different architectures, which meant we had different Makefile actions for single or multi-platform image building. With buildx we move to a multi architecture image as we need to create the builder and its build capabilities (see https://docs.docker.com/reference/cli/docker/buildx/build/). The way buildx build command works, we create a single multi architecture image which is pushed to the specified registry. In Makefile this corresponds to action docker-build-and-push.
• Images built with buildx and provenance attestation cannot be stored in the local registry, so we need to have an extra action that is platform-specific to which we can apply the --load flag that stores the resulting image locally. This applies to some CI workflows (e.g. lint). In Makefile this corresponds to action docker-build.
• Provenance attestation will be added to the image during the build process, as buildx build accepts --attest type=provenance as input parameter (see https://docs.docker.com/build/metadata/attestations/slsa-provenance/). After the image is built and pushed, provenance attestation can be validated via:

docker buildx imagetools inspect <registry>/turtles:<tag> --format "{{ json .Provenance }}"

This means we can get rid of the former provenance attestation GitHub Action.

• As we don't need to push a manifest to manage multiarch images, we can remove this step from release workflow. The image created with buildx includes different SHA256 values to identify each platform.

Which issue(s) this PR fixes:
Fixes #683

Special notes for your reviewer:

Checklist:

• squashed commits into logical changes
• includes documentation
• adds unit tests
• adds or updates e2e tests

[Danil-Grigorev]

Some naming suggestions, which disambiguate the new usage.

[furkatgofurov7]

Small nit, otherwise LGTM

[Danil-Grigorev]

LGTM, a question though. Have you tested the published provenance with something like https://github.com/slsa-framework/slsa-verifier to check it still passes? It seems it is following a different format: docker/buildx#1741

[furkatgofurov7]

Based on offline discussion, @alexander-demicev @Danil-Grigorev should we mark this with "DON'T Merge" until we are ready for buildx migration and to avoid accidental merge?

[alexander-demicev]

@salasberryfin some context for you, we figured out that with docker buildx we can only sign manifest that references each architecture-specific image. Currently, we sign every image for every architecture and this seems more complicated with buildx