Port GitLab CI to GitHub Actions

[girlbossceo]

I am left with no choice

[girlbossceo]

1. i need to figure out why i cant use cp after the 1st job (?)
2. why am i not able to use latest rocksdb git

https://github.com/girlbossceo/conduwuit/actions/runs/7689378768/job/20951743817#step:14:15792

x86_64 artifact uploaded but aarch64 failed because cp permission denied?

[girlbossceo]

Copying the binary from result was redundant and seemed to be the cause of the issue since I could have just specified the path for upload-artifact to find the binary in.

9bec878

Will figure out OCI/Docker now and then figure out git rocksdb

[girlbossceo]

Leaving out aarch64 deb file unless upstream starts building a deb file for it.

So far I need to validate that the optional features like sha256_media are not being used, and update links at DEPLOY.md programmatically due to GitHub (I think?) not supporting "latest" artifacts. (actions/upload-artifact#50 (comment))

I think I also could just create a "static" release that automatically uploads binaries to that.

Now just need to figure out git rocksdb.

[girlbossceo]

Still missing publishing to GitHub Container registry and Docker, and I would like to add additional targets like x86_64-unknown-linux-musl-sha256-media so it builds with the sha256_media feature but I'm so burnt out from this nix CI stuff so I'll maybe deal with it another time.

All artifacts outputted only have default features. I don't think many people are using sha256_media anyways except for me.

I was also left with no choice but to revert back to latest stable rust-rocksdb because of incredibly frustrating linker issues, but considering they said they would release a new version soon (rust-rocksdb/rust-rocksdb#858 (comment)) I think this is fine as a temporary thing.

As is, it should be working the same as upstream and should be good enough.