2 Nov 20:55
Re: lxml Mac installation idea
Stefan Behnel <stefan_ml <at> behnel.de>
2008-11-02 19:55:09 GMT
2008-11-02 19:55:09 GMT
Hi Ian, 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. >>> Another option would be simply a different tarball that contains the >>> libxml2/libxslt source, and its setup.py would always build those. >>> It could be versioned like 2.1static or something, which should keep >>> it from being implicitly used by easy_install, etc. (since 2.1static >>> is considered an earlier version than 2.1). This might be more >>> reasonable? >> >> The problem with this (and with the static Windows builds) is that >> libxml2/libxslt both have their release cycles, which are independent of >> lxml's releases. If you want to upgrade your libxml2 in a static >> build, you'll have to copy it to the right place anyway. > > Another option is yet another environmental variable to set the > libxml2/libxslt versions, which are set to defaults. If you chose a > version that didn't exist in the tarball it'd download that version.(Continue reading)
RSS Feed