On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 14:32:24 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev <sh...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Aleksey Shipilev has updated the pull request incrementally with one >> additional commit since the last revision: >> >> Rename -static job to -static-libs > > The point about difference between `static-libs` and `static` JDK is valid. I > renamed the job to `-static-libs`, and would expect #23471 to add another job > like `build-linux-x64-static` that would build static JDK. > > Conceptually, I have major reservations about sneaking in > `static-libs-bundle` make target in the generic `build-linux` job script. It > might have been OK when it was originally done, but it is IMO a hacky > solution, which prompts even more hacks to workaround the first hack! See > #23471. We are also "lucky" that no other jobs call into `build-linux` script > with `debug-level: release`, so we are not building `static-libs-bundle` in > all cross-compilation, no-pch, Zero and other jobs that only ask for > `hotspot`, for example. > > If we want to build `static-libs-bundle` only for Linux x64 release, the > clean way to do this is to explicitly define it as separate job. > > At some point in the future -- once build system catches up -- we _may_ > consider adding `static-libs-bundles` into default make target list in > `build-linux` / `build-windows` / etc. scripts. This would also be clean. But > before that happens, the non-standard build targets have IMO no business > being spliced into the generic scripts. > Hi @shipilev , we have merged the adaption in our canary tool. Could you > please push a commit in this PR and see how it may trigger on our end? A > trivial blank trimming or merge master would be sufficient. Does a merge commit count? Just merged from master :) ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23715#issuecomment-2682659187
