AZP: do not include libjucx into release packages.

[petro-rudenko]

What

JUCX is used solely from maven dependency.

Why ?

To not mess up classpath with libjucx.so.

cc @abellina

[yosefe]

is it needed for v1.10?

[petro-rudenko]

@yosefe would be nice to have, to prevent problems in the future. When people will install 1.10 and have libjucx.so for 1.10 in /usr/lib and use jucx-1.11 from maven #6441

[yosefe]

@yosefe would be nice to have, to prevent problems in the future. When people will install 1.10 and have libjucx.so for 1.10 in /usr/lib and use jucx-1.11 from maven #6441

I think it's more than "nice to have", given the explanation..

[petro-rudenko]

Added debian rules, since it doesn't include in RPM:
https://dev.azure.com/ucfconsort/ucx/_build/results?buildId=14050&view=logs&j=258e77f6-50dc-57ea-9b7a-2a6d4cf8d048&t=6f6dab2e-7ac4-5917-203c-40ea84742284

[abellina]

I think it's more than "nice to have", given the explanation..

It would be good to know if libjucx.so in the packaging, vs the one bundled with jucx JAR in maven central, are built with different options. nm shows some differences, and if we force load using LD_PRELOAD we end up crashing, even if we built using the jucx-1.9.0 jar that is published.

It seems that if the only reason for libjucx.so is for the JAR to use it (and now it bundles it), then removing it from the /usr/lib removes extra files and potential issues.

I should mention that I can't get this to happen unless I force load libjucx.so using preload. I've asked the reported to try LD_DEBUG to prove he gets the libjucx.so from /usr/lib. @rongou fyi.