Re: [Octave Forge] Octave 4.0 call for packages

[Oliver Heimlich]

On 10.04.2015 22:05, JohnD wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: address@hidden [mailto:address@hidden On Behalf Of
> > Carnë Draug
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 7:13 AM
> > To: John Donoghue
> > Cc: octave-maintainers; Mike Miller
> > Subject: Re: [Octave Forge] Octave 4.0 call for packages
> >
> > On 6 April 2015 at 23:31, John Donoghue <address@hidden>
> > wrote:
> > > On 04/06/2015 06:16 PM, address@hidden wrote:
> > > > Message: 4
> > > > Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2015 21:17:38 +0100
> > > > From: Carn? Draug<address@hidden>
> > > > To: Mike Miller<address@hidden>
> > > > Cc: Octave Maintainers<address@hidden>
> > > > Subject: Re: [Octave Forge] Octave 4.0 call for packages
> > > > Message-ID:
> > > >
> > > > <CAPOrs_1RNATmWYF9unM6NW7QDUxtJT24G-
> > address@hidden>
> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> > > >
> > > > On 15 March 2015 at 15:04, Mike Miller<address@hidden>  wrote:
> > > > > > [...]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The imminent Octave 4.0.0 release will be the first to supply an
> > > > > > official binary distribution of Octave for Windows operating systems.
> > > > > > This distribution will include a set of Octave Forge packages that
> > > > > > may be installed at the user's option. This is why we would like to
> > > > > > have compatible packages ready to incorporate into the next release
> > > > > > candidate for further testing.
> > > >
> > > > Can users that have installed Octave with such installer then install
> > > > more packages and other versions of those packages?
> > > >
> > > > If we are starting to distribute binaries of Octave core, would be
> > > > nice if we can also distribute binaries for the packages, specially
> > > > since the release cycle of core and OF is quite different.
> > > >
> > > > Carn?
>
> I just tried installing all of packages that currently in the active list on 
> octave forge in Windows using octave 4.0.0 rc2   (32 bit)
> This is trying to install on the windows machine, not attempting cross compile, 
> using what is available as the 'current' package on octave-forge.
> Heres the following results:

I can confirm your observations. I did an installation on Win 7 64bit 
and additionally did some “pkg test”ing. Unfortunately only few packages 
contain sufficient tests and allow an assessment. Here are my results 
(didn't check them against known bugs):

> bim  1.1.5      - OK
PASS 92, FAIL 0
15 (of 47) .m files have no tests.
> cgi  0.1.0      - OK
6 (of 6) .m files have no tests.
> communications  1.2.1 -  OK - warns unusable help found
PASS 457, FAIL 0
19 (of 115) .m files have no tests.
> control 2.8.0   - OK
PASS 317, FAIL 13
229 (of 287) .m files have no tests.
> database  2.3.1         - OK
PASS 0, FAIL 1 (should be expected)
5 (of 6) .m files have no tests.
> dataframe  1.1.0        - OK
PASS 3, FAIL 9
101 (of 101) .m files have no tests.
> data-smoothing  1.3.0   - OK
4 (of 4) .m files have no tests.
> dicom   0.1.1   - FAILED - Error with octave_map - Bug #44624
-
> divand  1.1.2   - OK
PASS 1, FAIL 0
115 (of 116) .m files have no tests.
> econometrics 1.1.1      - OK
28 (of 28) .m files have no tests.
> fem-fenics  0.0.3  - FAILED - requires eigen3 lib in mxe-octave, so currently 
> an expected failure
-
> financial 0.4.0         - OK
PASS 158, FAIL 9
23 (of 57) .m files have no tests.
> fits 1.0.5      - OK
No m-files for testing.
> fl-core 1.0.0   - FAILED - has been patched in mxe-octave - Bug #41214
-
> fpl  1.3.4      - OK
PASS 0, FAIL 5 (failed calls to deprecated function files)
10 (of 10) .m files have no tests.
> fuzzy-logic-toolkit 0.4.4       - OK - warning about continuation markers 
> depreciated
I did not see a warning?!
50 (of 50) .m files have no tests.
> ga 0.10.0       - OK    - lots of warning about continuation markers depreciated
I did not see a warning?!
PASS 79, FAIL 0
16 (of 22) .m files have no tests.
> general  1.3.4  - OK
PASS 25, FAIL 0, XFAIL 1
24 (of 28) .m files have no tests.
> generate_html 0.1.7     - OK
8 (of 8) .m files have no tests.
> geometry 1.7.0  - OK    - warning on printf args - warn on cant cleanup after 
> self
I can confirm the printf warnings only.
PASS 282, FAIL 3 (missing python, should be expected)
188 (of 233) .m files have no tests.
> image   2.4.0   - OK
PASS 631, FAIL 5, XFAIL 21
54 (of 137) .m files have no tests.
> image-acquisition 0.2.1 - FAILED -  requires v4l library no in mxe-octave so 
> expected
-
> instrument-control 0.2.1        - OK
27 (of 27) .m files have no tests
> interval  0.1.5 - OK
PASS 7264, FAIL 0, XFAIL 18
0 (of 249) .m files have no tests.
> io 2.2.7                - OK
PASS 11, FAIL 0
30 (of 32) .m files have no tests.
> java            - part of core now not tried
-
> level-set  0.2.0        - OK
Compile Warning: -fPIC ignored for target
PASS 198, FAIL 6 ('ls_copy_sign' undefined errors)
2 (of 31) .m files have no tests.
> linear-algebra  2.2.2   -OK     - warnings on abstract class types
Several warnings during compile:  writing file 'C:\.octave_hist': 
Permission denied
PASS 19, FAIL 1 (function 'fsin' not found)
57 (of 69) .m files have no tests.
> lssa  0.1.2     - OK
PASS 16, FAIL 0
0 (of 7) .m files have no tests.
> ltfat  2.0.1    - FAILED        - 'cc' not found - patched in mxe. - bug #43603
-
> mechanics 1.3.1         - FAILED        - install failure  Bug #44804
-
> miscellaneous 1.2.1     - OK
PASS 384, FAIL 9 (strsplit errors)
16 (of 30) .m files have no tests.
> mpi 1.2.0       - FAILED        - mxe has no mpi lib, so expected
-
> msh 1.0.10      - OK
PASS 28, FAIL 1 (the gmesh subprocess exited abnormally)
9 (of 21) .m files have no tests.
> mvn 1.1.0       - OK
PASS 1, FAIL 0
18 (of 19) .m files have no tests.
> nan 2.7.1       - OK    - warning -fPIC, shadow core funcs
Warnings during Compile:
ls: /usr/local/: No such file or directory
ls: /bin/mexext: No such file or directory
PASS 31, FAIL 0
65 (of 81) .m files have no tests.
> ncarray  1.0.3  - OK
45 (of 45) .m files have no tests.
> netcdf 1.0.6    - OK
Several warnings during compile: error: writing file 'C:\.octave_hist': 
Permission denied
10 (of 10) .m files have no tests.
> nurbs 1.3.9     - FAILED        - matrix_value - bug #44651
-
> ocs  0.1.3      - OK    - continuation marker warnings
Can't install, depends on odepkg
> octcdf 1.1.8    - OK
Several warnings during compile: error: writing file 'C:\.octave_hist': 
Permission denied
PASS 23, FAIL 0
30 (of 31) .m files have no tests.
> octclip 1.0.3   - OK    - printf format warnings
PASS 5, FAIL 0
0 (of 1) .m files have no tests.
> octproj 1.1.2   - FAILED        - mxe-octave needs libproj, so expected failure
-
> odepkg  0.8.4   - FAILED        -  octave_map - bug #44594
-
> optics 0.1.1    - DONE
PASS 166, FAIL 2 (%!test should be %!error)
0 (of 43) .m files have no tests.
> optim 1.4.1     - DONE
PASS 16, FAIL 0
49 (of 54) .m files have no tests.
> optiminterp 0.3.4       - DONE
Several warnings during compile: error: writing file 'C:\.octave_hist': 
Permission denied
9 (of 9) .m files have no tests.
> parallel 2.2.1  - FAILED        - bug #41148
-
> quaternion 2.4.0        - OK
PASS 23, FAIL 0
60 (of 76) .m files have no tests.
> queueing 1.2.3  - OK
PASS 261, FAIL 4 ('sumexpn' undefined, and low tolerances), XFAIL 3
23 (of 101) .m files have no tests.
> secs1d 0.0.9    - OK
5 (of 5) .m files have no tests.
> secs2d 0.0.8    - FAILED        - Octave_map error Bug #44803
-
> secs3d 0.0.1    - OK
39 (of 39) .m files have no tests.
> signal 1.3.1    - OK
PASS 469, FAIL 3
78 (of 146) .m files have no tests.
> sockets 1.2.0   - OK
No m-files for testing
> specfun 1.1.0   - OK    - warnings on some shadows funcs
I did not see the warnings?!
PASS 6, FAIL 0
17 (of 19) .m files have no tests.
> splines 1.2.7   - OK
PASS 75, FAIL 0
5 (of 12) .m files have no tests.
> statistics 1.2.4        - OK
PASS 219, FAIL 25 (this really looks bad)
52 (of 117) .m files have no tests.
> stk 2.2.0       - OK
PASS 576, FAIL 348 (many failed because of undefined variables)
82 (of 222) .m files have no tests.
> strings 1.1.0   - FAILED        - pcre - Bug #44640
-
> struct 1.0.11   - OK
PASS 9, FAIL 0, XFAIL 1
0 (of 3) .m files have no tests.
> symbolic 2.1.0  - OK
Unable to test (popen2: process creation failed)
> tsa  4.2.9      - OK    - warn on shadows a core lib function
Warnings during compile:
ls: /usr/local/: No such file or directory
ls: /bin/mexext: No such file or directory
PASS 17, FAIL 0
50 (of 55) .m files have no tests.
> vrml 1.0.13     - OK    - warnings on continuation markers
I did not see the warnings?!
44 (of 44) .m files have no tests.
> windows 1.2.1   - FAILED        - Array compile errors - Bug #44180
-


Summing up the current versions of Octave Forge packages I get the 
following impression. Please don't take the categories too serious, 
because I have no detailed knowledge of most packages. I just ran the tests.

4.0 COMPATIBLE
-bim
-communications
-ga
-geometry
-interval
-level-set (under the assumption that tests are deprecated)
-lssa
-msh (under the assumption that tests are deprecated)
-nan
-octcdf
-octclip
-optics
-splines
-struct

DEPRECATED
-java

NOT INSTALLABLE
-dicom
-fem-fenics
-fl-core
-image-acquisition
-ltfat
-mechanics
-mpi
-nurbs
-ocs
-octproj
-odepkg
-parallel
-secs2d
-strings
-windows

SERIOUS TEST FAILURES
-control
-dataframe
-financial
-image
-miscellaneous
-queueing
-signal
-statistics
-stk

UNKNOWN (INSUFFICIENT TESTS)
-cgi
-database
-data-smoothing
-divand
-econometrics
-fits
-fpl
-fuzzy-logic-toolkit
-general
-generate_html
-instrument-control
-io
-linear-algebra
-mvn
-nan
-ncarray
-netcdf
-optim
-optiminterp
-quaternion
-secs1d
-secs3d
-sockets
-specfun
-symbolic (I was unable to test)
-tsa
-vrml


Oliver