Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Not creating droplet with default ssh key #149

Closed
zuriar opened this issue Jan 23, 2015 · 3 comments
Closed

Not creating droplet with default ssh key #149

zuriar opened this issue Jan 23, 2015 · 3 comments

Comments

@zuriar
Copy link

zuriar commented Jan 23, 2015

Hi

USING tugboat version 0.2.0

tugboat keys ->

SSH Keys:
my-key-name (id: _123_)

~/.tugboat ->


authentication:
client_key: *******
api_key: ********
ssh:
ssh_user: root
ssh_key_path: /home/******/.ssh/id_rsa
ssh_port: '22'

defaults:
region: '7'
image: '9801950'
size: '62'
ssh_key: 'my-key-name'
private_networking: 'false'
backups_enabled: 'false'

tugboat create foo ->

returns a new droplet but has not copied 'my-key-name' into ~/.ssh/authorized_keys which means when I run

tugboat ssh foo -> (expecting > ssh root@)

It still asks me for password.

Basically, DigitalOcean account has the SSH key set up but Tugboat is not correctly installing it into new droplets. Am I missing something?

thanks
Hugh

@zuriar
Copy link
Author

zuriar commented Jan 26, 2015

OK, my bad. It turns out that you need to use the ssh_key ID number, not the name.

If you add your local machine public key using 'tugboat add-key' the call to Digital Ocean API will return the new ssh_key ID number and tugboat will update the ~/.tugboat config accordingly. If you have already uploaded an ssh_key to digital ocean (using the web interface) then you can find out the ID number by running 'tugboat keys'

(FYI - this kinda breaks the convention of using like-for-like in API designs. Droplets have IDs as well as names, as do ssh_keys however all tugboat commands dealing with droplets uses the name but ssh_keys uses the ID.... worth considering as I assumed the same API design through out....)

@petems
Copy link
Owner

petems commented Jan 29, 2015

Yeah, the 1.0 API had a few inconsistencies, but this has caused some issues, we should clarify (see #136)

@petems
Copy link
Owner

petems commented Jan 31, 2015

Clarified in #157

@petems petems closed this as completed Jan 31, 2015
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant