[Framework] Update arch exclusions for dotnet

[mreid-tt]

Description

This pull request enhances the clarity of dotnet 6.x exclusions by revising existing definitions, streamlines the documentation by consolidating notes and history, and introduces specific exclusions for ARMv7 under DSM 6.2.

Fixes #

Checklist

• Build rule all-supported completed successfully
• New installation of package completed successfully
• Package upgrade completed successfully (Manually install the package again)
• Package functionality was tested
• Any needed documentation is updated/created

Type of change

• Includes small framework changes

[mreid-tt]

@hgy59, I've created this PR to address the issue in #5909 (comment). Let me know if it has your approval.

[hgy59]

LGTM

[hgy59]

@mreid-tt one point remaining:

Since armv7 on DSM 6 is not supported for dotnet, I am almost sure that comcerto2k-7.1 is not suppported too.

We have several packages that support armv7 on DSM 7 but do not support comcerto2k.
The comcerto2k toolchain did not get glibc and gcc updates on DSM 7 but other arm7 archs did. That was the reason we need to build comcerto2k-7.1 differently to armv7-7.1 (on DSM 6 comcerto2k was included in the generic armv7 builds, but for DSM 7 we had to split comcerto2k out of generic armv7 builds).

The only model with comcerto2k arch is DS414j.
So to validate whether packages built with dotnet core are supported on comcerto2k with DSM 7, we need feedback from users having still a DS414j running.

related issues #5111, #4871, #3453

@mreid-tt I guess you did not get feedback for comcerto2k in #5574. So I propose to add comcerto2k-7.1 to UNSUPPORTED_ARCHS_TCVERSION (for both DOTNET_CORE_ARCHS and DOTNET_SERVARR_ARCHS).

If ever a user will complain a missing comcerto2k package, we will have a chance to build and test it.

what do you think?

[hgy59]

oops it took too long to write the comment above...