add gman linux arm32 binaries

[theofficialgman]

@Scrumplex followed your previous naming scheme. requires a simple launcher change to https://github.com/PolyMC/PolyMC/blob/fafc9cf9ca86fd66db09e9ccc1cdb53520fd7c16/launcher/RuntimeContext.h#L31-L36 as well.

on armhf/arm32/armv7l systems, most java binaries return "arm" so there should be an elif statement for javaRealArchitecture == "arm" to return "arm32". I did not want to simply use "arm" in the meta patcher since it wouldn't be as clear.

[Scrumplex]

I am actually thinking about using the proper names for the architectures. i.e. linux-aarch64 instead of linux-arm64 and linux-armhf instead of linux-arm32. It might be not too late, as we haven't released a version with the multi-arch patches yet. Will think about this

[theofficialgman]

I like arm64 and arm32 better as that is what lwjgl3 uses internally.

Regardless it is all a simple find and replace all command so not a big deal either way.

[theofficialgman]

Also fyi. As I said, armhf isn't proper (not by what java reports https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/2087424736f15a5a80a0492993a6cd74da87188a/bin/unshuffle_list.txt#L104-L109 ) it is simply arm. Some really old versions of openjdk8 also had it as aarch32 but that was changed to arm in like 2016 or so.

It's bad no matter what really. Debian debs use armhf to designate armv7l compatible packages, and arm64 for armv8 64bit (there is a 32bit only form btw). Fedora rpm uses armv7l and aarch64.

There are so many competing naming standards, it's best to just keep it simple, arm32 and arm64. If you wanted to use what openjdk has mostly settled on, that would be arm and aarch64. But like I said, that is different from lwjgl3 settled on.

[Scrumplex]

Looks good