Review OSX universal mode patch

[Henri Gomez]

> Let's make it clear once and for all what is desired. I can put this into a bug if it will help.
>
> -- A straight 'make' of OpenJDK on Mac OS X is 64-bit only. '-d32' and '-d64' are ignored.
> -- 'make all_xxx_universal' produces a universal build. (Some clarification on the make target would be helpful)
> -- All versions of Mac OS X that support 64-bit Intel allow you to run binaries of either architecture. If the build is universal, passing  '-d32' or '-d64' on the command line chooses the architecture to be run.
> -- When -d32 is used, System.getProperty("os.arch") = "i386". Any native libraries loaded must be i386.

ok

> -- When -d64 is used, System.getProperty("os.arch") = "x86_64". Any native libraries loaded must be x86_64.

ok

> -- We will not support an i386-only build. If someone wants to fork or add a post-processing step that lipo's away all of the x86_64 parts, they can do that.

ok, a single universal 32/64 package was the way OSX users worked with
Apple JVM.

> As far as maintenance goes:
>
> -- No patch that compiles with only one architecture is allowed.

make sense

> -- By extension, no linking against a framework or library that is 32-bit or 64-bit only.

of course

> -- At some well-defined time in the future we will drop i386 entirely, but not before OS X is completely 32-bit-free. (Yes, this is strict. If you want to do something that is i386-only, fork the project.)

Dropping 32bits support in the future ? Near or long term future ?

There is still SnowLeopard around and many may remains in the future,
we should try to preserve them, at least for the community supported
version.

You mention fork, does it means that OpenJDK 7 and 8 could/should be
forked to other locations if community want to still support 32bits ?
GitHub or BitBucket are valid solutions for such fork ?

> Are there any points I'm missing here? Henri, does your patch satisfy all of these requirements? I think it does, based on the conversation I saw between you and David Holmes, but I'm not clear on the make targets.

No missing points, this is a good coverage.