You are not logged in.

#1 2025-10-15 15:31:47

barnd3
Member
Registered: 2023-02-07
Posts: 165

gdk-pixbuf2-noglycin icons missing

Because of the bug with "gdk-pixbuf2-2.44.3," I installed the package "gdk-pixbuf2-noglycin." It's working so far.
I'm using XFCE, and no icons are displayed in the panel for open windows.
What can I do?

Offline

#2 2025-10-15 17:05:08

karabaja4
Member
From: Croatia
Registered: 2008-09-14
Posts: 1,018
Website

Re: gdk-pixbuf2-noglycin icons missing

Have you updated to gdk-pixbuf2-noglycin 2.44.3-2
?

Offline

#3 2025-10-15 17:57:54

barnd3
Member
Registered: 2023-02-07
Posts: 165

Re: gdk-pixbuf2-noglycin icons missing

yes is the "gdk-pixbuf2-noglycin 2.44.3-2"

Offline

#4 2025-10-15 18:31:11

seth
Member
From: Don't DM me only for attention
Registered: 2012-09-03
Posts: 69,138

Re: gdk-pixbuf2-noglycin icons missing

It's working so far. I'm using XFCE, and no icons are displayed

1. is that meant to indicate a regression?
2. is the problem strictly limited to the taskbar thumbnails in xfce?
3. can we see any errors (system journal, xsession errors or by starting xfce-panel from an interactive shell)?

Offline

#5 2025-10-15 18:40:19

barnd3
Member
Registered: 2023-02-07
Posts: 165

Re: gdk-pixbuf2-noglycin icons missing

I don't intend to point out a regression.

The problem is limited to the Xfce panel icons, as far as I can see.

Here's the only hint when starting the panel.

(xfce4-panel:94652): Gtk-WARNING **: 17:53:47.532: Could not load a pixbuf from icon theme.
This may indicate that pixbuf loaders or the mime database could not be found.

Offline

#6 2025-10-15 19:09:49

seth
Member
From: Don't DM me only for attention
Registered: 2012-09-03
Posts: 69,138

Re: gdk-pixbuf2-noglycin icons missing

Unrelated to the overall situation or noglycin build?
Does it work if you start an xfce session as different (fresh) user?

See https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=302145 but don't just run everything there and certainly no unconditionally as sudo.

Offline

#7 2025-10-15 19:18:59

lambdarch
Member
From: France
Registered: 2021-01-10
Posts: 105
Website

Re: gdk-pixbuf2-noglycin icons missing

Offline

#8 2025-10-15 20:50:14

mokkurkalve
Member
From: Bergen, Norway
Registered: 2009-08-29
Posts: 68

Re: gdk-pixbuf2-noglycin icons missing

It’s a one-line patch. It would be easy to do the makepkg -o , patch , makepkg -e dance here, to check if that’s all gdk-pixbuf2-noclycin needs.


"ONLY THOSE WHO ATTEMPT THE IMPOSSIBLE WILL ACHIEVE THE ABSURD"
- Oceania Association of Autonomous Astronauts

Offline

#9 2025-10-15 21:24:21

karabaja4
Member
From: Croatia
Registered: 2008-09-14
Posts: 1,018
Website

Re: gdk-pixbuf2-noglycin icons missing

I updated gdk-pixbuf2-noglycin to 2.44.3-3 with that patch FWIW.

Offline

#10 2025-10-16 06:54:46

mpan
Member
Registered: 2012-08-01
Posts: 1,508
Website

Re: gdk-pixbuf2-noglycin icons missing

The majority of issues with gdk-pixbuf2 using glycin are resolved by now. I don’t know the status of unwanted interaction with sandboxing tools, but simple bugs of the infancy period and errors causing images not loading shouldn’t happen. So maybe the solution is to switch back to the in-repo version?


Paperclips in avatars?
NIST on password policies (PDF) — see §3.1.1.2
Sometimes I seem a bit harsh — don’t get offended too easily!

Offline

#11 2025-10-16 07:09:52

WorMzy
Administrator
From: Scotland
Registered: 2010-06-16
Posts: 13,020
Website

Re: gdk-pixbuf2-noglycin icons missing

Mod note: moving to AUR Issues


Sakura:-
Mobo: MSI MAG X570S TORPEDO MAX // Processor: AMD Ryzen 9 5950X @4.9GHz // GFX: AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT // RAM: 32GB (4x 8GB) Corsair DDR4 (@ 3000MHz) // Storage: 1x 3TB HDD, 6x 1TB SSD, 2x 120GB SSD, 1x 275GB M2 SSD

Making lemonade from lemons since 2015.

Online

#12 2025-10-16 07:49:16

seth
Member
From: Don't DM me only for attention
Registered: 2012-09-03
Posts: 69,138

Re: gdk-pixbuf2-noglycin icons missing

The majority of issues with gdk-pixbuf2 using glycin are resolved by now.

No idea where https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=309527 comes from but apparently not an "obviously doomed" sandboxing approach.

That aside, there's clearly a bug in pixbug's [that started as a typo, I noticed it. Then decided to leave it there] internal BMP loader here, showcasing another problem w/ the status quo: since gdk-pixbuf2 is supposed to be cross-platform, but glycin is not, it /has/ to remain optional, what means there're now two completely different codepaths to maintain, doubling the attack surface.

Fire-proofing each room separately can easily end up in constructing a furnace…

Offline

#13 2025-10-16 09:23:05

karabaja4
Member
From: Croatia
Registered: 2008-09-14
Posts: 1,018
Website

Re: gdk-pixbuf2-noglycin icons missing

seth wrote:

since gdk-pixbuf2 is supposed to be cross-platform, but glycin is not, it /has/ to remain optional

e02e5ffb5f980cd8262cf7f0ae00a4a9_press-x-to-doubt-memes-memesuper-la-noire-doubt-meme_419-238.png

I think you underestimate how little GNOME devs care about breaking anything outside the scope of GNOME...

Offline

#14 2025-10-16 09:33:35

mokkurkalve
Member
From: Bergen, Norway
Registered: 2009-08-29
Posts: 68

Re: gdk-pixbuf2-noglycin icons missing

karabaja4 wrote:

I think you underestimate how little GNOME devs care about breaking anything outside the scope of GNOME...

Yes. They seem to want to force the world to use GNOME. I fear for the future of lightweight GTK3-based DEs like MATE and XFCE. I'm considering moving as much as possible from GTK to Qt. Maybe LXQt as DE...?


"ONLY THOSE WHO ATTEMPT THE IMPOSSIBLE WILL ACHIEVE THE ABSURD"
- Oceania Association of Autonomous Astronauts

Offline

#15 2025-10-16 13:47:26

seth
Member
From: Don't DM me only for attention
Registered: 2012-09-03
Posts: 69,138

Re: gdk-pixbuf2-noglycin icons missing

I've little illusions about gnome-stuff (feel free to search the forum, qarma was me ranting a night into an editor because somebody said the quiet part out loud) but pixbuf is a widely used library - if the official version turns "linux only" there'll necessarily be a fork.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB