So, we have some reasonable nubmers about actual reproducibility for Debian bullseye from the "beta" tests; looks to be over 90% reproducible, which is great considering it is compared against packages people actually use in the real world!
The "beta" tests wil miss out on toolchain fixes introduced since the last time the package was built, as it builds using the same toolchain, whereas the other tests use the toolchains currently in bullseye. https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/bullseye/index_suite_amd64_stats.html ~96% reproducible 29647+828+334+23 = 30832 packages tested (excluding 64 non-amd64 and non-arch-all) https://beta.tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/results/bullseye_full.amd64+all.png ~92% reproducible 26403+1398+62+820 = 28683 packages tested I did notice an oddity in that the tests have ~1.8k more packages being tested than the "beta" tests. Not sure how that ~1.8k packages would skew the results, but even then, the numbers still probably look pretty good. I know the results from the "beta" tests do separate arch:amd64 builds and arch:all builds and then combines the data somehow, where the other tests do arch:amd64+arch:all builds in a single pass per source package; could that be related to the difference in total packages tested? Holger also mentioned there were 500+ packages in bullseye without .buildinfo files; I presume "beta" can only test packages with a .buildinfo file, but does it log "missing .buildinfo" in some way? Any other thoughts how the two different systems might be counting packages differently? live well, vagrant
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Reproducible-builds mailing list [email protected] https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/reproducible-builds
