Reproducibility of ocaml...

[Chris Lamb]

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