Re: install lxml 2.0.5 on Mac OS X Leopard - why is it so hard?

Hi,

Mike Meyer wrote:
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 09:01:01 +0200
> Stefan Behnel <stefan_ml <at> behnel.de> wrote:
> 
>> you ask why this is so hard? Simple answer: because no-one has contributed a
>> way so far to make it easier.
> 
> Gee, I had no trouble at all doing this last week (the release of
> Oracle library bits for Intel OS-X means it's now desirable). I
> installed macports, did a self-update, then installed py25-lxml.  It
> installed python2.5.2 and the versions of libxml2 and libxslt that
> were in macports as part of the process. Installing cx_Oracle after
> that was more work.
> 
>> We had lots of reports about stuff not working and almost as many
>> work-arounds, but no-one came up with a patch that would allow building lxml
>> reliably at least on a subset of Mac-OS systems. And I just cannot believe
>> that there is no-one amongst the Mac-OS-X users who knows how to use distutils
>> to build a binary extension. Or at least someone who knows how to build C code
>> statically against a C library.
> 
> I'm sorry, but my experience is that binary distributions make the
> problems *worse*, not better

I wasn't talking about distributing binaries. I meant: someone has to provide
a way to configure the compiler so that it builds lxml statically on Mac-OS.

Stefan