Update letsencrypt role docs to suggest a specific order
In reviews on https://review.opendev.org/819923 we discovered we are inconsistent in how we create certs. Suggest a specific course of action and record the reasoning. Change-Id: I974a1717a74e759ca8805dcb707efc7fe29ba53f
This commit is contained in:
parent
e79dbbe6bb
commit
7f96224ef9
@ -39,7 +39,9 @@ provision process.
|
|||||||
certificate to create (i.e. a host can create multiple separate
|
certificate to create (i.e. a host can create multiple separate
|
||||||
certificates). Each key should have a list of hostnames valid for
|
certificates). Each key should have a list of hostnames valid for
|
||||||
that certificate. The certificate will be named for the *first*
|
that certificate. The certificate will be named for the *first*
|
||||||
entry.
|
entry. Naming the cert for the service (rather than the hostname)
|
||||||
|
will simplify references to the file (for example in Apache
|
||||||
|
VirtualHost configs), so listing it first is preferred.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
For example:
|
For example:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
@ -47,13 +49,13 @@ provision process.
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
letsencrypt_certs:
|
letsencrypt_certs:
|
||||||
hostname-main-cert:
|
hostname-main-cert:
|
||||||
- hostname01.opendev.org
|
|
||||||
- hostname.opendev.org
|
- hostname.opendev.org
|
||||||
|
- hostname01.opendev.org
|
||||||
hostname-secondary-cert:
|
hostname-secondary-cert:
|
||||||
- foo.opendev.org
|
- foo.opendev.org
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
will ultimately result in two certificates being provisioned on the
|
will ultimately result in two certificates being provisioned on the
|
||||||
host in ``/etc/letsencrypt-certs/hostname01.opendev.org`` and
|
host in ``/etc/letsencrypt-certs/hostname.opendev.org`` and
|
||||||
``/etc/letsencrypt-certs/foo.opendev.org``.
|
``/etc/letsencrypt-certs/foo.opendev.org``.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Note the creation role ``letsencrypt-create-certs`` will call a
|
Note the creation role ``letsencrypt-create-certs`` will call a
|
||||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user