Re: Qhull test changes

[Brad Barber]

At 07:32 PM 1/30/2012, Ben Abbott wrote:

>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

I hope that all builds of Octave upgrade to 2012.1.  There's a serious bug with 
2009.1 and other bugs fixed in 2011.2 and 2012.1.  For details, see
   http://gitorious.org/qhull/qhull/blobs/master/src/Changes.txt

                                --Brad