On Sat, Aug 16, 2025 at 7:27 PM Matthias Geiger <[email protected]> wrote: > glycin in 2.x has the option to build a thumbnailer [0]. In addition, > gdk-pixbuf now has > the option to build its thumbnailer with libglycin [1]. libglycin is a C > library compiled from Rust (and src:glycin). I think both are things we > want to enable since the rust code is memory safe. I will definitely > enable the glycin-own thumbnailer. Regarding gdk-pixbufs thumbnailer, I > would like to hear the teams' opinions on that. This could be enabled > only conditionally on the release arches for the time being. Upstream > noted the only downside are the loaders being Linux-only since they rely > on libseccomp. > > Links: > > [0]: > https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/glycin/-/tree/main/glycin-thumbnailer?ref_type=heads > [1]: > https://blogs.gnome.org/sophieh/2025/06/13/making-gnomes-gdkpixbuf-image-loading-safer/
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). 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. 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? [3] https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=glycin Thank you, Jeremy Bícha
