Hi! On Thu, 2024-03-28 at 09:58:29 +0800, Sean Whitton wrote: > On Thu 07 Mar 2024 at 11:22pm +01, Guillem Jover wrote: > > diff --git a/policy/ch-source.rst b/policy/ch-source.rst > > index 4307e89..2fb05cd 100644 > > --- a/policy/ch-source.rst > > +++ b/policy/ch-source.rst > > @@ -685,7 +685,7 @@ variables are also available. > > > > The ``debian/substvars`` file is usually generated and modified > > dynamically by ``debian/rules`` targets, in which case it must be > > -removed by the ``clean`` target. > > +removed by the ``clean`` target (for example with ``dpkg-buildtree > > clean``). > > > > See :manpage:`deb-substvars(5)` for full details about source variable > > substitutions, including the format of ``debian/substvars``. > > @@ -725,8 +725,9 @@ building packages to record which files are being > > generated. > > > > It should not exist in a shipped source package, and so it (and any > > backup files or temporary files such as ``files.new``) [#]_ should be > > -removed by the ``clean`` target. It may also be wise to ensure a fresh > > -start by emptying or removing it at the start of the ``binary`` target. > > +removed by the ``clean`` target (for example with ``dpkg-buildtree > > clean``). > > +It may also be wise to ensure a fresh start by emptying or removing it at > > the > > +start of the ``binary`` target. > > > > When ``dpkg-gencontrol`` is run for a binary package, it adds an entry > > to ``debian/files`` for the ``.deb`` file that will be created when > > Instead of "It may also be wise ..." can you use one of the sets of > magic words from Policy 1.1, please?
This text was already part of policy and the proposed patch did not really touch it, except for wrapping it into a new line. I think modifying it feels a bit out-of-scope for this request? But if you think it's relevant, and the sentence should be improved as part of this, then I'll try to provide some wording. :) Thanks, Guillem
