Re: Qhull test changes

[Ben Abbott]

On Jan 30, 2012, at 7:15 PM, Alexander Hansen wrote:

> On 1/30/12 6:02 PM, Rik wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>>> I'm not certain, but doesn't "Qt" imply that the convex hull
>>> should be made up of triangles ? (perhaps I should study the
>>> qhull docs a bit ?)
>>> 
>>> In any event, I favored the more recent qhull because it matches
>>> Matlab's result.
>>> 
>> Yes, the output should be triangulated when we pass the 'Qt' option
>> and the new post-2011 Qhull behavior is mathematically correct.
>> The problem is that Qhull is not returning triangulated output for
>> versions less than 2011 and users will blame Octave when they see a
>> failing test in the test report.  I am proposing that Octave work
>> around the different Qhull versions so we don't generate a lot of
>> spurious bug reports.
>> 
>> On the other hand, if we want we could leave the test in and also
>> put in some comments that specifically say, "If you see this test
>> failing, then you must upgrade your Qhull installation."  This
>> might do a bit towards pushing users and distributions to upgrade
>> to a new Qhull.
>> 
>> --Rik
> 
> Excuse me jumping in, but does this indicate that I should be using
> qhull>=2011 for my Octave-3.4.3 and Octave-3.6.0 Fink packages?  I've
> been using 2009.3.
> 
> -- 
> Alexander Hansen
> Fink User Liaison

To use qhull 2011 a patch is needed. 2009, 2010, or 2012 should each be ok. The 
problem appears to be in the tests Octave runs (i.e. make check)

Ben