On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 15:58:03 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev <sh...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> > @shipilev Can you help review/approve the change, if no other questions? > > Sorry for not looking at this sooner. > > It looks to me that you are trying to work-around a little mess introduced by > `static-libs-bundles` addition > ([JDK-8337265](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8337265)). Not your mess, > but trying to avoid it introduces more headaches. 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, which would then allow your PR to proceed by just > calling `build-linux` normally, without introducing a wholly new job script. > Let me try to fix `static-libs-bundles` first. Thank you, @shipilev! Fixing the build-linux first sounds good to me. I see you have PR already, thanks again! In fact, there is a similar build resource (disk space) issue for the static job as well. It requires some work in both the runtime and build system to address the underlying problem that causes excessive build resource consumption. I created https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8350450. @magicus has been looking into integrating (related runtime changes from hermetic-java-runtime branch) and fixing the issue in JDK mainline. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23471#issuecomment-2672313053
