olivier Thereaux | 1 Feb 02:11 2007
Picon

Re: LogValidator on OS X


Hello Elliotte,

On Feb 1, 2007, at 01:09 , Elliotte Harold wrote:
> Has anyone successfully installed LogValidator (not just HTML  
> Validator) on Mac OS X 10.4 or other versions? If so, do you have  
> any tips to share?

I'm using it on 10.4.

No particular tip,
sudo perl -MCPAN -e shell
install W3C::LogValidator
(and my cpan is set up to follow and pre-install dependencies)

> I've tried it on both PowerPC and Intel, and the CPAN install fails  
> with a variety of test failures.

Could you paste the output of the installation procedure? Knowing  
which tests fail, whether they are tests related to the log validator  
or modules it depends on, etc. will help.

--

-- 
olivier

Karl Dubost | 1 Feb 02:41 2007
Picon

Re: LogValidator on OS X


Hi Elliotte,

Le 1 févr. 2007 à 01:09, Elliotte Harold a écrit :
> Has anyone successfully installed LogValidator (not just HTML  
> Validator) on Mac OS X 10.4 or other versions? If so, do you have  
> any tips to share?
>
> Specifically should I sudo the CPAN install?

Yes I think so :) Or at least I always do.

> I've tried it on both PowerPC and Intel, and the CPAN install fails  
> with a variety of test failures.
> I can force an install, but that has problems of its own.

Let me try.

karl:~ [10:16:34]% uname -mpsrv
Darwin 8.8.1 Darwin Kernel Version 8.8.1: Mon Sep 25 19:42:00 PDT  
2006; root:xnu-792.13.8.obj~1/RELEASE_I386 i386 i386

% perl -v
This is perl, v5.8.6 built for darwin-thread-multi-2level
(with 3 registered patches, see perl -V for more detail)

Going to LogValidator page.
http://www.w3.org/QA/Tools/LogValidator/

     "Where do I get it?
(Continue reading)

olivier Thereaux | 1 Feb 03:24 2007
Picon

Re: LogValidator on OS X


On Feb 1, 2007, at 10:41 , Karl Dubost wrote:
>
> t/module-css..........Can't locate WebService/Validator/CSS/W3C.pm  
> in  <at> INC
> t/module-htmlval......Can't locate LWP/UserAgent.pm in  <at> INC

[snip]

in the CPAN shell, type the following

o conf prerequisites_policy follow
o conf commit

so that your CPAN system knows it has to follow dependencies and  
install required modules.

Unfortunately there seems to be a mess around some of the modules  
required by modules required by the logvalidator. Oh, joy.

One way to go at it is to make sure the prereqs are installed  
properly, more or less by hand. It's a failure of the cpan system  
here, that one has to do it this way, I'm afraid.

Notably, you could try installing

HTML::Tagset
then LWP::UserAgent
then XML::Parser
then SOAP::Lite
(Continue reading)

Karl Dubost | 1 Feb 05:14 2007
Picon

Re: LogValidator on OS X


Le 1 févr. 2007 à 11:24, olivier Thereaux a écrit :
> On Feb 1, 2007, at 10:41 , Karl Dubost wrote:
>>
>> t/module-css..........Can't locate WebService/Validator/CSS/W3C.pm  
>> in  <at> INC
>> t/module-htmlval......Can't locate LWP/UserAgent.pm in  <at> INC
>
> Notably, you could try installing
>
> HTML::Tagset
> then LWP::UserAgent
> then XML::Parser
> then SOAP::Lite
> then WebService::Validator::CSS::W3C
> ... then W3C::LogValidator
>
> Hopefully that should work (although, karl just told me on IRC that  
> XML::Parser seemed to ask for an expat install, too...)

Installing libexpat is a MUST for XML::Parser.
Then installing SOAP::Lite gives a few more problems.

For example, Installing SOAP::Lite, I had a few error messages
t/04-attach............Something wrong with MIME message:  
MIME::Parser: can't flush:  at /Library/Perl/5.8.6/MIME/Parser.pm  
line 821.

this one is solved by installing… IO::ScalarArray
cpan[30]> install IO::ScalarArray
(Continue reading)

Karl Dubost | 1 Feb 06:25 2007
Picon

Re: LogValidator on OS X


Le 1 févr. 2007 à 13:14, Karl Dubost a écrit :
> then another problem… still in SOAP::Lite ;)
>
> t/06-modules...........ok 1/19# Failed test 15 in t/06-modules.t at  
> line 24 fail #15
> t/06-modules...........NOK 15/19#  t/06-modules.t line 24 is:   $ <at>   
> =~ /(Can\'t locate)|(XML::Parser::Lite requires)|(this is only  
> version)|(load mod_perl)/
> # Failed test 19 in t/06-modules.t at line 24 fail #17
> t/06-modules...........FAILED tests 15, 19
>         Failed 2/19 tests, 89.47% okay (less 2 skipped tests: 15  
> okay, 78.95%)

I haven't found a solution for this one except, going into manual mode

cpan>look SOAP::Lite
perl Makefile.PL
make
make test (will fail)
make install anyway
exit

(which I believe is the same than force install)

Then installing the rest
cpan>install WebService::Validator::CSS::W3C
cpan>install W3C::LogValidator

The validator seems to pass all its tests. I haven't tested yet with  
(Continue reading)

Elliotte Harold | 1 Feb 13:08 2007
Picon

Re: LogValidator on OS X


olivier Thereaux wrote:

>> I've tried it on both PowerPC and Intel, and the CPAN install fails 
>> with a variety of test failures.
> 
> Could you paste the output of the installation procedure? Knowing which 
> tests fail, whether they are tests related to the log validator or 
> modules it depends on, etc. will help.

I'll see what I can do, but we're talking a lot of output. Like most 
Unix installers LogValidator's is way too chatty. It tends to hide the 
problems you actually want to see in a sea of irrelevant successes.

--

-- 
Elliotte Rusty Harold  elharo <at> metalab.unc.edu
Java I/O 2nd Edition Just Published!
http://www.cafeaulait.org/books/javaio2/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596527500/ref=nosim/cafeaulaitA/

Elliotte Harold | 1 Feb 13:14 2007
Picon

Why does LogValidator dpeend on SOAP?


Karl Dubost wrote:

> cpan>look SOAP::Lite

FYI, why is a SOAP a prerequisite anyway? We're talking to a web server 
over HTTP and reading local files. What do we need SOAP for? Shouldn't 
raw HTTP be enough?

--

-- 
Elliotte Rusty Harold  elharo <at> metalab.unc.edu
Java I/O 2nd Edition Just Published!
http://www.cafeaulait.org/books/javaio2/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596527500/ref=nosim/cafeaulaitA/

Elliotte Harold | 1 Feb 13:37 2007
Picon

Re: A simpler Web service response format


olivier Thereaux wrote:

> WebService::Validator::CSS::W3C [1] and the equivalent perl module for 
> feed validator use SOAP::Lite library quite succesfully. 

Actually, no it doesn't. Initial investigations seem to be showing that 
it is SOAP::Lite that is breaking the install process for LogValidator 
due to dependency failures. :-(

Dependencies are bad. The fewer you have the better. Providing umpteen 
different interfaces to a service just adds umpteen-1 extra ways the 
service can break.

--

-- 
Elliotte Rusty Harold  elharo <at> metalab.unc.edu
Java I/O 2nd Edition Just Published!
http://www.cafeaulait.org/books/javaio2/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596527500/ref=nosim/cafeaulaitA/

Olivier Thereaux | 1 Feb 15:37 2007
Picon

Re: A simpler Web service response format


On Thu, Feb 01, 2007, Elliotte Harold wrote:
> >WebService::Validator::CSS::W3C [1] and the equivalent perl module for 
> >feed validator use SOAP::Lite library quite succesfully. 
> 
> Actually, no it doesn't. Initial investigations seem to be showing that 
> it is SOAP::Lite that is breaking the install process for LogValidator 
> due to dependency failures. :-(

No. There are faulty dependencies around SOAP::Lite that cascade into
something annoying. And that has little to do with the discussion at
hand, frankly. Would you say that using HTTP is bad because LWP happens
to have a broken dependency at the moment?

> Dependencies are bad. The fewer you have the better. Providing umpteen 
> different interfaces to a service just adds umpteen-1 extra ways the 
> service can break.

I disagree with you. Dependencies can go wrong, that far is true. But
dependencies are good, insofar as they allow developers not to all
reinvent the wheel. Don't let your frustration lead you to unwise
generalizations.

Regards,
--

-- 
olivier

Olivier Thereaux | 1 Feb 15:50 2007
Picon

Re: Why does LogValidator dpeend on SOAP?


On Thu, Feb 01, 2007, Elliotte Harold wrote:
> FYI, why is a SOAP a prerequisite anyway? We're talking to a web server 
> over HTTP and reading local files. What do we need SOAP for? Shouldn't 
> raw HTTP be enough?

We're reading local (or not local) files and passing them to validators,
which use a soap-based format in their response mechanism.

--

-- 
olivier