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, not...@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/
