Changing name produced for cvm and marketplace images

[mbykhovtsev-ms]

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 (./LICENSES-AND-NOTICES/SPECS/data/licenses.json, ./LICENSES-AND-NOTICES/SPECS/LICENSES-MAP.md, ./LICENSES-AND-NOTICES/SPECS/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

Changes the naming pattern for cvm image to use cblmariner-gen2-cvm.vhd format to be descriptive and uniform with how other image types are name

Change Log

• Changes the naming pattern for cvm image to use cblmariner-gen2-cvm.vhd format to be descriptive and uniform with how other image types are name

Does this affect the toolchain?

NO

[reubeno]

Is there a need for the cblmariner moniker to be used (as opposed to azurelinux or similar)?

[mbykhovtsev-ms]

Is there a need for the cblmariner moniker to be used (as opposed to azurelinux or similar)?

Good point. I synced with Jon before about renaming it as well. Renaming it would require updating our infrastructure as currently some build, publish and possibly test infrastructure code is used to having cblmariner format for the images. Jon said we do not want to destabilize our infrastructure at the moment. Maybe we will do it for 4.0, but even if we did it now for 3.0 we would have to make sure we handle both cblmariner and azurelinux cases as 2.0 would still have the old name. Maybe when we GA 4.0 and start retiring 4.0 we can rename this. Good thing is that mostly it is not visible for our customers, unless they build an image locally using one of these configs