pastilhasandClaude Opus 5
6b4fed68fd
It was in both light profiles on the reasoning that it fronts a REMOTE instance and so needs nothing installed locally. That is true and it was beside the point: a baseline process appears in the dock and in the Permissions screen whether or not anyone ever gave it a URL, so a fresh server offered to grant members access to a Gitea that did not exist. "Is Gitea here" had two answers that could disagree. Now it is `existing` mode with a URL and a token, like any other remote service, and the one place that says whether it is here is the install row. No compose template and no `provisioned` mode: Gitea is always something the owner already runs, and offering to spin one up would mean owning its migration, backup and upgrade story. members: 'none' — not because Gitea is single-tenant, it is the most per-user service in the catalogue, but because there is nothing for the INSTALLER to do. The owner's connection carries the instance; each member adds their own access token from /gitea and acts only as themselves upstream. A provisioner would need an admin token and would mint credentials on their behalf, which is more authority than this needs. The catalogue test already pinned "the store offers exactly what light leaves out", so removing it from the profile is what forced the entry to exist. Both light profiles changed together — the mac one carried the same comment and the same gap. Permissions on a fresh install is now Files and Plans. Plans stays because it reads the platform's own shipped markdown from <repo>/plans, not anyone's disk, so it needs nothing installed and exposes nothing. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>