"valid signature" -> "trustworthy signature"

I just had a colleague get confused by the previous phrase for good
reason. "valid" sounds like an *objective* criterion, e.g. and *invalid
signature* would be one that would be trusted by no one, e.g. because it
misformatted or something.

What is actually going is that there might be a signature which is
perfectly valid to *someone else*, but not to the user, because they
don't trust the corresponding public key. This is a *subjective*
criterion, because it depends on the arbitrary and personal choice of
which public keys to trust.

I therefore think "trustworthy" is a better adjective to use. Whether
something is worthy of trust is clearly subjective, and then "trust"
within that word nicely evokes `trusted-public-keys` and friends.

1 files changed, 1 insertions, 1 deletions

diff --git a/src/libstore/globals.hh b/src/libstore/globals.hh
index e9d721e59..fb8f810c2 100644
--- a/src/libstore/globals.hh
+++ b/src/libstore/globals.hh
@@ -560,7 +560,7 @@ public:
         R"(
           If set to `true` (the default), any non-content-addressed path added
           or copied to the Nix store (e.g. when substituting from a binary
-          cache) must have a valid signature, that is, be signed using one of
+          cache) must have a trustworthy signature, that is, be signed using one of
           the keys listed in `trusted-public-keys` or `secret-key-files`. Set
           to `false` to disable signature checking.
         )"};