Consider adding image based on ghcr.io/graalvm/jdk-community image

[yoohaemin]

There's the size difference between those two

$ docker pull ghcr.io/graalvm/graalvm-community:22.0.1
$ docker pull ghcr.io/graalvm/jdk-community:22.0.1
$ docker inspect -f "{{ .Size }}" ghcr.io/graalvm/graalvm-community:22.0.1 | awk '{printf "%.2f MB\n", $1 / (1024 * 1024)}'
1160.76 MB
$ docker inspect -f "{{ .Size }}" ghcr.io/graalvm/jdk-community:22.0.1 | awk '{printf "%.2f MB\n", $1 / (1024 * 1024)}'    
557.40 MB

From their images page: https://github.com/graalvm/container/pkgs/container/graalvm-community#graalvm-community-edition-container-images

jdk-community A size compact GraalVM Community Edition container image with the GraalVM JDK.
graalvm-community A GraalVM Community Edition container image.

I have a feeling that quite some usecases of docker-sbt GraalVM image will be simply for the JDK, without the native image or other language interop features, because the performance characteristics is different from normal HotSpot.

Will it be a good idea to also have another kind of image, or would it be too much? (Not suggesting we change the base image of existing graalvm ones, it probably will break other people's workflows)

[francisdb]

I've been out of the JVM ecosystem for a while now so not sure what is current of best practices.

Maybe we can stop building 2.12.19 for Graal and bring this instead? I would expect users using graal to not be using 2.12.x.

Think you can come up with a PR?