Review Request JDK-8175819: OS name and arch in JMOD files should match the values as in the bundle name

[mark.reinhold at oracle.com]

2017/4/4 1:04:22 -0700, magnus.ihse.bursie at oracle.com:
> On 2017-04-03 23:50, Mandy Chung wrote:
>> ...
>> 
>>            JDK 8               JDK 9
>>            -----               -----
>> OS_NAME    Linux               linux
>>            SunOS               solaris
>>            Darwin              macos
>>            Windows             windows
>> 
>> OS_ARCH    i386,x86            x86
>>            i586,amd64,x86_64   amd64
>>            sparcv9             sparcv9
>>            arm                 arm32
>>            aarch64             arm64
> 
> If we are making changes to the original proposal from JDK-8175819, then 
> I just want to add my few cents:
> 
> Why change from the well-established "aarch64" to the virtually unused 
> "arm64"? As far as I know, using the name "arm64" for the aarch64 
> platform is something that has only been done in the (recently opened) 
> closed Oracle port. This change, however, proposes to change the value 
> in the release file even for the open aarch64 port, which has always 
> been known by that name.

The trouble here is that "arm64" and "aarch64" are effectively synonyms
for the ISA, but in the JDK we've wound up using them as the names of
two different ports.

A JMOD file built for the 64-bit ARM architecture will (one hopes) run
equally well on either port.  Which name should we use in JMOD files,
"arm64" or "aarch64"?  My sense is that "arm64" is more immediately
understood by developers at large even if "aarch64" is more correct
in the eyes of ARM Holdings plc, but I could be wrong.

For what it's worth, the Linux distros aren't consistent: Debian-based
distros use "arm64", while Red Hat / Fedora seem to prefer "aarch64".

- Mark