> Noticed this when reviewing > [JDK-8349399](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8349399), which had to > kludgy workaround the hunk introduced by `static-libs-bundles` addition > ([JDK-8337265](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8337265)). I am somewhat > surprised we even have `static-libs-bundles` as additional target in what I > would consider a generic build-linux job! It looks cleaner to yank > `static-libs-bundles` into a separate build job. > > This effectively reverts parts of the original change, and does a few > modifications: > - I see no reason to store the bundles, and continuing to do so would > effectively overwrite `linux-x64-bundles` when we split the static build into > another job, breaking tests. Not sure why we had to publish those bundles, > @dougxc? They are not used in current JDK tests, I think? > - The matrix definition in `build-linux.xml` unconditionally includes > `debug` configuration to override flags and suffix, I had to redo this with > inline variables > > Named the new job `linux-x64-static`, since I expect @jianglizhou to slide > https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/23471 just there by adding another > `make-target` into that job definition. > > I did a partial GHA run already, and I expect full run to complete without > errors. > > Testing: > - [x] GHA
Aleksey Shipilev has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision: Touch up comment ------------- Changes: - all: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23715/files - new: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23715/files/95257a13..aadf9b6b Webrevs: - full: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=23715&range=02 - incr: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=23715&range=01-02 Stats: 3 lines in 1 file changed: 2 ins; 0 del; 1 mod Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23715.diff Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/23715/head:pull/23715 PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23715
