refactor(l1,l2): separate L1 and L2 launch logic

[tomip01]

Motivation

This pull request introduces refactors to the ethrex.rs file with the launch of the L1 and L2. Separates both in two functions.

Description

• We create a launch.rs with both the launcher of the L1 and the L2. Here we add a cfg to only compile the desired function.
• We extract the functions outside the main() in the ethrex.rs to a new file utils.rs.

Closes #1987

[github-actions]

| File                                                     | Lines | Diff |
+----------------------------------------------------------+-------+------+
| /home/runner/work/ethrex/ethrex/cmd/ethrex/ethrex.rs     | 16    | -414 |
+----------------------------------------------------------+-------+------+
| /home/runner/work/ethrex/ethrex/cmd/ethrex/launch/l1.rs  | 332   | +332 |
+----------------------------------------------------------+-------+------+
| /home/runner/work/ethrex/ethrex/cmd/ethrex/launch/l2.rs  | 297   | +297 |
+----------------------------------------------------------+-------+------+
| /home/runner/work/ethrex/ethrex/cmd/ethrex/launch/mod.rs | 5     | +5   |
+----------------------------------------------------------+-------+------+
| /home/runner/work/ethrex/ethrex/cmd/ethrex/utils.rs      | 97    | +97  |
+----------------------------------------------------------+-------+------+

Total lines added: +731
Total lines removed: 414
Total lines changed: 1145

[jrchatruc]

These networks specific checks can be removed for L2. In general, a whole bunch of other initialization stuff related to p2p can be removed, though it might be a bit of work so it's fine to leave for another PR

[ilitteri]

I'd separate the logic into two different files, so it's easy to read each launcher code separately.

There could be a module launcher with l1.rs and l2.rs submodules each containing a launch function. Then the mod.rs would be:

pub mod l1;
#[cfg(feature = "l2")]
pub mod l2;

And its usage in ethrex would be:

l1::launch(...)
l2::launch(...)

[ilitteri]

If you want to keep the names launch_l1 and launch_l2, that is okay too. Do what you think is and looks the best. If you keep launch_l1 and launch_l2, the usage should be:

launch_l2(...)
launch_l1(...)

[tomip01]

That's looks better, done 07789f4

[ilitteri]

The based feature does not take part in L1, so we should keep it for the L2 launch.