Improve CI Binaries

[Disservin]

Our CI binary names, especially for ARM, are a bit confusing right now.
I propose the following changes:

• drop ubuntu and use linux Rename Linux universal release package/binary #6760

• use .gz tar archive for linux Compress Linux universal release package #6746

• use .gz for other tar archives remaining Further binary releases fixes #6850

• rename armv8 -> arm64

• rename armv7 -> arm32

• rename macos-m1-apple-silicon -> macos-arm64

• add arm64 binaries for linux arm64 universal binaries redux #6823

• Add Prerelease Notes #6803

• drop old macos binaries #6836

Also so far we don't have any differentiation for macos (arm) binaries and for the near future we'll only distribute m1 binaries, since that's what github offers us as a runner (m1) and there's no SDE like binary for macos either.

open question:

• only distribute a bmi2 binary for macos x86-64 ? instead of a universal binary to avoid the changes in Make universal Intel macOS binary #6788
  macos should have bmi2 since 2013 and those devices are much more consumer focused anyway. Answered in drop old macos binaries #6836

[ddobbelaere]

I propose to use tar.gz for all archives that are now plain tar. Is there a reason to not do this?

[vondele]

sounds good as we're renaming stuff

[dav1312]

Rename x86-64-universal -> x86-64?

[ddobbelaere]

Rename x86-64-universal -> x86-64?

Good idea, but it will start to diverge from the Makefile target architecture then, which is unfortunate.

And you cannot really change the latter I think, as this will break stuff for users that want to build the old "x86-64".
Maybe you can do this also actually, if no one ever builds for a generic (old) x86-64 architecture anyway.

[vondele]

I'm indeed not sure dropping universal is ideal.

[dubslow]

explicit is better than implicit, universal binaries should be labelled as exactly what they are (which is to say, very different from a typical single-target binary)

[ppigazzini]

explicit is better than implicit, universal binaries should be labelled as exactly what they are (which is to say, very different from a typical single-target binary)

I agree.
x86-64-universal👈download-this!-your-friendly-named-binary-is-gone!-blame-anematode!.zip

[ddobbelaere]

Actually we are not conforming to standard definitions of universal and fat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_binary, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_binary. Our binaries are just "fat" or multiarchitecture. Universal is typically used for e.g. combos ARM64+x86-64.

I understand that vondele doesn't like fat for branding (me neither), but maybe x86-64-multiarch etc would be better?

So that @anematode still has the challenge of creating a true universal one at some point? 😉