On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 15:44:32 -0800 Ned Deily <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 23:42:49 +0000 (UTC) Medhat Gayed > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > lxml is good but not written in python and difficult to install and > > > didn't > > > work > > > on MacOS X. > > lxml is built on top of libxml2/libxslt, which are bundled with most > > Unix-like OS's (including Mac OS X), or available in their package > > systems. Trying to install it from the repository is a PITA, because > > it uses both the easyinstall and Pyrex (later Cython) packages - which > > aren't bundled with anything. On the other hand, if it's in the > > package system (I no longer have macports installed anywhere, but > > believe it was there at one time), that solves all those problems. I > > believe they've excised the easyinstall source dependencies, though. > [...] > > If you just want an xml module in the standard library that's more > > complete, I'd vote for the source distribution of lxml, as that's C + > > Python and built on top of commonly available libraries. The real > > issue would be making current lxml work with the "outdated" versions > > of those libraries found in current OS distributions. > > I'm not sure what you perceive to be the problems with easy_install on > OSX; I find it makes life *much* simpler for managing python packages. I don't, but the real issue is that it's been considered - and rejected - for inclusion in the standard library multiple times. The OPs request was for a validating XML parser in the standard library. Any third party code that requires easy_install won't be acceptable. I think lxml is the best Python XML library that meets his requirements, and it would make my life a lot easier if it were part of the standard library. However, the authors tend to require recent versions of libxml2 and libxslt, which means recent versions of lxml won't build and/or work with the libraries bundled with many Unix and Unix-like systems - including OSX. Which means you wind up having to build those yourself if you want a recent version of lxml, even if you're using a system that includes lxml in it's package system. > Be that as it may, since the release of lxml 2.0, the project has > updated the lxml website with useful information about source > installations and, in particular, OSX source installations: > > <http://codespeak.net/lxml/build.html> > > IIRC, here's what worked for me on Leopard (10.5.2) using the python.org > 2.5.2, though it should work fine with the Apple-supplied 2.5.1: This is similar to what I went through with 1.3.6 on Tiger, but I used MacPorts. On Leopard, 1.3.6 builds out of the box. Just do "sudo python setup.py install" and you're done. That's probably the easiest way to get a validating xml parser on OS X at this time. <mike -- Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.mired.org/consulting.html Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
