"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/nix/verify.cc b/src/nix/verify.cc
index e92df1303..6dc539e24 100644
--- a/src/nix/verify.cc
+++ b/src/nix/verify.cc
@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ struct CmdVerify : StorePathsCommand
         addFlag({
             .longName = "sigs-needed",
             .shortName = 'n',
-            .description = "Require that each path has at least *n* valid signatures.",
+            .description = "Require that each path has at least *n* trustworthy signatures.",
             .labels = {"n"},
             .handler = {&sigsNeeded}
         });