RFR: 8350443: GHA: Split static-libs-bundles into a separate job [v4]

[Aleksey Shipilev]

On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 14:32:24 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev <shade at 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