search for: ch_pipermail_r

...can make a list of these tests if someone thinks it would be a good idea to double-check them and possibly improve them (e.g., convert them to use identical() instead of `==`). I'm guessing it's not worth the time. Scott [1] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__stat.ethz.ch_pipermail_r-2Dhelp_2015-2DDecember_434610.html&d=DwIBAg&c=pZJPUDQ3SB9JplYbifm4nt2lEVG5pWx2KikqINpWlZM&r=1fpq0SJ48L-zRWX2t0llEVIDZAHfU8S-4oINHlOA0rk&m=G8tEZpMWPL4vxGGinNsRHdfXpDqiFEownNAdY_AOiUk&s=wxOygcK0MIUDAQhkzjgfT-4edxWNCWluOEgAyR-xCC0&e= [2] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url...

I could do this...and I have before. This brings up a more fundamental question though. You're asking me to write code that changes the logic of the installation process (i.e. writing my own package installer). Instead of doing that, I would rather integrate that logic into R itself to improve the baseline installation process. This api proposal change would be additive and would not break