From: werdahias@riseup.net 
  
 On Sun, 17 Aug 2025 02:41, Jeremy Bicha  wrote: 
 >The blog post recommends disabling gdk-pixbuf's own thumbnailer and 
 >using glycin's thumbnailer instead (which Ubuntu has packaged with the 
 >binary package name glycin-thumbnailers). 
 Right. 
 >glycin is not available on several non-release architectures [3]. My 
 >understanding is that we need to keep a binary package available in 
 >release architectures for it to be available in ports. I might be 
 >mistaken on that detail. However, Ubuntu would rather not build glycin 
 >on i386 but Ubuntu does build gdk-pixbuf for i386. Therefore, this is 
 >easy to resolve by keeping the gdk-pixbuf thumbnailers and the 
 >without-glycin build option on i386 and the ports where glycin isn't 
 >available. 
 That was my concern too, that some ports do not have libseccomp and thus 
 can't run build glyin. 
 >Currently, the gdk-pixbuf thumbnailers are included with some other 
 >utilities in libgdk-pixbuf2.0-bin so maybe we should split those 
 >thumbnailers to a separate binary package? 
 > 
 IMO that makes sense, so at a later time we can selectively enable the 
 linking against libglycin. Since this is a build time option though this 
 could be enabled selectivly only for the release arches at a later 
 point. If you all agree then I'd just add the new binary 
 glycin-thumbnailer package and leave gdk-pixbuf as-is. That seems like 
 the least invasive course of action. 
  
 best, 
  
 werdahias 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)