On Mon, 8 May 2023 08:57:37 GMT, Severin Gehwolf <sgehw...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> > All of that said, I think we can get away with a smaller subset of targets > > and deliverables. AFAIK, graal needs the combined `graal-builder-image` as > > input to their build anyway, so they should not have any dependency on what > > the target `static-libs-image` produces. Given that I propose the following > > behavior: > > `make static-libs-image` produces `images/static-libs` with all .a > > (including libjvm.a). `make static-libs-graal-image` produces > > `images/static-libs-graal` with all .a except libjvm.a. `make > > graal-builder-image` produces `images/graal-builder-image` like today, but > > depends on and uses `static-libs-graal-image` instead of > > `static-libs-image`. `make static-libs-bundles` depends on and uses > > `static-libs-image` like today, so will contain libjvm.a, which is new > > behavior. > > Sure, that should work too as long as there is a way to a) build the static > libs only needed for graal some way b) keep `graal-builder-image` working as > it does today. FWIW, we use `a)` at adoptium so as to be able to have a > combination to build mandrel from. Not all users will want to have JDK + > static libs so only the ones needing them should need to download them. Thanks @erikj79 @jerboaa. We can go with what @erikj79 suggested then. I'll revise the PR. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/13768#issuecomment-1538945606
