From 752f967c0fe2489fe13d8c2c65c3ecba72064adc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: John Ericson Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2022 10:43:48 -0400 Subject: "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. --- src/libstore/globals.hh | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) (limited to 'src/libstore/globals.hh') 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. )"}; -- cgit v1.2.3