V8 offers a variety of configuration options. The v8-r package that I maintain is specifically tailored to the needs of R users. It is required by the R-package V8, which itself is a dependency of other R-packages. Therefore v8-r is explicitly mentioned in the documentation of the R-Package. While the V8-Package, which is recently maintained by Ariel who is the author of this merge request, has a different build configuration and a static monolithic core. (Not sure why this ain't no major difference to you.) The current configuration of the AUR-package v8 would make it impossible to build the R-Package. While it is possible to make appropriate changes to build the R-Package with a monolithic V8 (which is exactly what I did recently and which is now documented as a variant in the R-Package), these are at least medium-term goals that would break the existing R ecosystem in the short term. In the interest of the R users I therefore have to veto the merge request. I'm not against unifying v8 builds and have argued in this direction with the former maintainer of the AUR-package. Though V8 is a mighty package which offers multiple build configurations and there simply is no one size fits all. On 10/31/20 8:57 AM, notify@aur.archlinux.org wrote:
relrel [1] filed a request to merge v8-r [2] into v8 [3]:
I don't see any major difference between v8-r and v8, except that v8 is currently in stable version (as intended), and v8-r is in canary version. I assume that the canary version is not a hard constraint, and since stable is preferred over canary for stability and security reasons, I suggest to merge v8-r into v8 in order to reduce unnecessary duplication and confusion among users.
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/relrel/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/v8-r/ [3] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/v8/