Hi Stéphane, > Looking at [3], it seems only unstable is affected. Are you aware of a > change that could explain that? In particular, I don't understand why > the bookworm version is reported as reproducible whereas the version is > the same as unstable.
I appreciate this info is difficult to find (!), but for a bunch of historical reasons, there are actually a different set of variations tested when we test sid compared to when we test bookworm. In other words, the differences between the two builds is not just the package version and Debian distribution. We try to canonically document the differences on this page: https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/index_variations.html And almost certainly the difference is down to the build path. :) Does that help? We've had a series of build path variations in the OCaml stack, so maybe some patch got reverted, or…? Best wishes, -- o ⬋ ⬊ Chris Lamb o o reproducible-builds.org 💠 ⬊ ⬋ o _______________________________________________ Reproducible-builds mailing list Reproducible-builds@alioth-lists.debian.net https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds
