RFR: 8350443: GHA: Split static-libs-bundles into a separate job [v2]

[Aleksey Shipilev]

On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 08:29:28 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev <shade at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> 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:
> 
>   Upload static bundles again

OK, this downstream use should really be documented if you want people to know why it should persist. New version does a comment hopefully explaining this. The static bundle is uploaded, but now separately, in `linux-x64-static`. I am guessing that would work for Graal downstream?

-------------

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23715#issuecomment-2673901613