On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:20:59 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie <i...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> It seems we agree that we need, at some point, to have a high-level > discussion on if libjsig should be supported on static builds, and if so, how > it should be implemented. We also agree that having signal chaining enabled > by default on our static JDK builds are incorrect. Thumbs up. > > However, I suggest we chose a simple path, were we utilize the framework for > not building a static library that we do not use (this is already done for > several libraries that are not included in the static JDK image), while you > suggest we keep compiling it, even if we do not include it and test it. > > I don't get the point of this. If we don't include it, and don't test it, > then surely it would be better to not even build it now? We have no current usages of libjsig in our current hermetic Java testing and prototype development work. So I don't have related concerns if don't produce a `libjsig.a` in the `static-libs` for the short term. Let's check with @dougxc and others from GraalVM side to make sure that they are okay with removing `libjsig.a` from the static libs bundle, before making any changes. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23924#issuecomment-2705012476
