On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 17:01:04 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev <sh...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Please review this change that adds a `linux-x86-static` job in GHA. The job >> builds the `static-jdk-image` release binary on linux-x64. Please see >> https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/build-dev/2025-February/048830.html for >> some additional context. >> >> A `debug` build job (building `static-jdk-image` fastdebug binary) is not >> included currently. There is a known issue that causes build failure due to >> resource problem, which causes the `fastdebug` build fail in github >> workflow. Please see more related information in >> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8349399?focusedId=14749789&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-14749789. >> >> >> GHA: https://github.com/jianglizhou/jdk/actions/runs/13163673020 > > What's the difference between `build-linux-static.yml` and `build-linux.yml`? > Can we just call `build-linux.yml` to do the static build? > @shipilev Thanks for looking into this. > > > What's the difference between `build-linux-static.yml` and > > `build-linux.yml`? Can we just call `build-linux.yml` to do the static > > build? > > Currently, the main difference is avoiding building `static-libs-bundles` > completely in `build-linux-static.yml`, since that's not needed for the > testing purpose with `static-jdk-image`. In `build-linux.yml`, there is the > following logic that skips building `static-libs-bundles` but for `fastdebug` > build only. I actually initially started using `build-linux.yml` for the > static build job, but later added `build-linux-static.yml` when I was looking > for a cleaner way to skipping building `static-libs-bundles`. > > ``` > # Only build static-libs-bundles for release builds. > # For debug builds, building static-libs often exceeds disk space. > STATIC_LIBS: ${{ matrix.debug-level == 'release' && > 'static-libs-bundles' }} > ``` @shipilev Can you help review/approve the change, if no other questions? ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23471#issuecomment-2652125359
