Adding missing binaries for cdi v1.55+

[Adub17030MS]

Merge Checklist

All boxes should be checked before merging the PR (just tick any boxes which don't apply to this PR)

• The toolchain has been rebuilt successfully (or no changes were made to it)
• The toolchain/worker package manifests are up-to-date
• Any updated packages successfully build (or no packages were changed)
• Packages depending on static components modified in this PR (Golang, *-static subpackages, etc.) have had their Release tag incremented.
• Package tests (%check section) have been verified with RUN_CHECK=y for existing SPEC files, or added to new SPEC files
• All package sources are available
• cgmanifest files are up-to-date and sorted (./cgmanifest.json, ./toolkit/scripts/toolchain/cgmanifest.json, .github/workflows/cgmanifest.json)
• LICENSE-MAP files are up-to-date (./SPECS/LICENSES-AND-NOTICES/data/licenses.json, ./SPECS/LICENSES-AND-NOTICES/LICENSES-MAP.md, ./SPECS/LICENSES-AND-NOTICES/LICENSE-EXCEPTIONS.PHOTON)
• All source files have up-to-date hashes in the *.signatures.json files
• sudo make go-tidy-all and sudo make go-test-coverage pass
• Documentation has been updated to match any changes to the build system
• Ready to merge

---

Summary

This PR is adding the tools/ binaries to rpm spec (these are needed for Nexus GA). The following binaries are required to be included by the Nexus

Change Log

• Adding tools/ binaries to spec

Does this affect the toolchain?

NO

Associated issues

Links to CVEs

Test Methodology

• Buddybuild: https://dev.azure.com/mariner-org/mariner/_build/results?buildId=381930&view=results
• Validation will occur on the Nexus side, so we are good to merge on this end

[PawelWMS]

This way we're effectively removing the binaries we have already made public and potentially introducing regressions fo whoever has already been using this package. Are we only re-naming the files but they are actually the same executables or are the new ones different from the old ones?

[oliviacrain]

Agreed, would like to see symlinks from the old names to the new.

[romoh]

Same binaries, just renames.
We had a bad name to begin with. Those were created mainly for cdi containers so less likely a chance of breaking anyone.

[PawelWMS]

Please add more details in the summary. Right now it's unclear why we're making this change and in the current state the modifications are a regression, so we should have a good justification.

If we're only re-naming the executables, then please also explain why we're doing that and make sure the old ones are still available to prevent breaking anyone, who might have been using the ones from the previous versions of the package.