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, plus 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: - [ ] GHA ------------- Commit messages: - Fix Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23715/files Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=23715&range=00 Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8350443 Stats: 32 lines in 3 files changed: 15 ins; 12 del; 5 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
