[lxml-dev] lxml Mac installation idea

[Chris Withers]

Stefan Behnel wrote:
>> Out of interest, what's the canonical way to build lxml when you're 
>> developing it? What's the canonical way to run the unit tests?
> 
> Not sure I do it the "canonical" way, but I usually run "make test",

What does "make test" do?

> sometimes
> passing PYTHON=..., sometimes setting XML2_CONFIG=... and XSLT_CONFIG=...

This is to test with different versions of python, libxml2 and libxslt, 
right?

> We have binary eggs for Windows, built statically for each release by Sidnei
> da Silva, as we figured that Windows users will have a hard time building lxml
> without a C compiler installed.

*nods*

> We don't have a contributor for MacOS binaries.

Well, I have Macs, if there's a recipe to follow and no-one else is 
prepared to do it, I'd be more than happy to do so...

> I don't see any reason to provide binaries for Linux, as lxml builds nicely
> with easy_install on almost any distribution.

...provided you have libxml2 and libxslt along with their dev headers 
available, right?

> I happily accept binary builds for any system where users have problems in
> getting lxml built automatically. If buildout helps here, fine with me.

Nope, I haven't heard anything that suggests buildout would help for 
projects that aren't already using buildout...

It *is* a shame though that while, for Windows users, they just need to 
do "easy_install lxml", linux users have to make sure a bunch of 
packages are installed first :-/

> The users are not the problem. The system itself is, and the (lack of) updates
> that Apple provides, which is only partly compensated by different package
> distributions that, instead of updating the system, install things separately
> but within reach.

Ah :-(

Chris

-- 
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
            - http://www.simplistix.co.uk