Support Ubuntu 20.04 and unify dockerfiles across debian/ubuntu

[lk86]

Explain your changes:

• Rosetta ubuntu containers were reporting as "stretch" in the docker tag due to old debian-centric defaults, this PR attempts to refactor the docker release script and/or job to use an ubuntu-specific codename in place of stretch to signify ubuntu 20.04
• Document rosetta 1.3.0 release by updating the readme to use the official release branch
• Combine staged dockerfiles for ubuntu and debian
• Support Debian 11 "Bullseye" with an entire MinaArtifact Pipeline
• Support Ubuntu 20.04 "Focal Fossa" with an entire MinaArtifact pipeline
• Support Ubuntu 18.04 "Bionic Beaver" in a more industry-standard way, while still sharing some of the logic and the builder container from Debian stretch. In practice these could even be identical packages with different manifests but this is saved for a future PR.
• Isolate python requirements for various tests onto the debian buster toolchain to simplify the stretch/bionic/focal flows
• Shorten the Names/Labels on jobs so that the unique parts of the name show up in the buildkite summary
• Support making ubuntu-based Dockerfile-mina-daemon and Dockerfile-mina-archive builds using the ${image} argument independent from deb_codename
• Remove unique "Rosetta Ubuntu" container builds, dhall job, and dockerfiles in favor of the generalized version

Explain how you tested your changes:

• CI

Checklist:

• [*] Modified the current draft of release notes with details on what is completed or incomplete within this project
• [*] Document code purpose, how to use it
  • Mention expected invariants, implicit constraints
• [*] Tests were added for the new behavior
  • Document test purpose, significance of failures
  • Test names should reflect their purpose
• All tests pass (CI will check this if you didn't)
• [*] Does this close issues? List them

• Closes Support Ubuntu 20.04 in CI #10004

[stevenplatt]

Other than the reported merge conflicts, I don't spot any items to flag in the code.

[lk86]

Other than the reported merge conflicts, I don't spot any items to flag in the code.

The conflicts are resolved in #10212 which will merge first