Re: Qhull test changes

[Alexander Hansen]

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