[lxml-dev] lxml Mac installation idea

[Ian Bicking]

Paul Everitt wrote:
>> Ian Bicking wrote:
>>> Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>> but I'd like it to work without buildout, and there's also several
>>> buildout recipes and configurations out there and not one clear
>>> canonical way to build lxml.
>>
>> I wouldn't mind to ship lxml with a buildout recipe. I think the current
>> problem is that if we wait to find one that works well for as many 
>> people as
>> possible, we'll wait forever. So I'm fine with adding any script that's
>> somewhat tested and in use. Even a set of scripts that you can try is 
>> better
>> than none if people can't manage to build lxml themselves.
> 
> FWIW, we have a very lean buildout that only focuses on the problem of 
> building lxml.  I could contribute it if you'd like.

How does this compare to plone.recipe.lxml 
(http://pypi.python.org/pypi/plone.recipe.lxml)?  I notice that package 
just had a release.  Is this the config you've been using? 
https://svn.plone.org/svn/plone/PloneOrg/sandbox/xdv/new.plone.org/osx.cfg 
(if so, in your run-deliverance script, it'd be best to use exec to 
avoid the intermediate shell process and make it easier to kill the script)

One problem with buildout recipes is that they aren't, AFAIK, very 
compatible with other systems.  That is, they can build the egg, but the 
egg isn't on the path of any interpreter, so unless you use buildout 
entirely you'll have to do some further manipulation to make lxml available.

I think I've also seen some reports that even using the macports lxml 
build, DYLD_LIBRARY_PATH can matter.  I don't remember where I saw that 
now... maybe actually as part of another recipe?

-- 
Ian Bicking : ianb at colorstudy.com : http://blog.ianbicking.org