wroclaw-git-backups/nix
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/NixOS/nix synced 2025-06-30 07:33:16 +02:00
Code Activity

"valid signature" -> "trustworthy signature"

Browse source 
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.
This commit is contained in:
John Ericson 2022-09-22 10:43:48 -04:00
parent f704c2720f
commit 752f967c0f
5 changed files with 6 additions and 6 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

2
src/libstore/globals.hh
View file

@ -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.
)"};