On 14.10.2009, at 13:44, Daniel Drake wrote: > Today I ran a quick experiment on OLPC OS v8.2.1, based on the > question: what are the activity MANIFEST files used for? > > I see sugar frequently complaining about MANIFEST inconsistencies in > the logs, but I don't recall seeing it act on these inconsistencies in > any way. I noticed that it even logs such inconsistencies during > startup, meaning that it must be checking every file in every activity > during a regular boot... > > So, I reflashed 2 XOs, booted for the first time, entered a name. On > one, I modified sugar.bundle.ActivityBundle.read_manifest() to be a > no-op, then turned it off. On the other, I just turned it off. > > Then I powered both on at the same time and started a stopwatch. I > measured how long it takes for the XOs to reach the stage of boot > where the XO stick figure and the activity icons are visible. > > The one with the modification reached this point *55* seconds faster > than the other one! It basically zeroes the time where you can see the > XO stick figure on screen but the activity icons on the home view have > yet to appear. > > This was using OLE Nepal's customized build which includes a big > activity with many manifest errors, so the difference might be less > elsewhere. > > Tomeu points out that this behaviour has been improved in more recent > sugar versions to the point where manifest checking probably is not > happening in the startup path, but personally I question why we are > even checking at all. Perhaps we should rip out all that code and > leave MANIFESTs purely as a tool for developers to specify which files > get included in a bundle or something like that.
I did indeed think that's the entire purpose of it. - Bert - _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
