Skip to content

πŸ–‹οΈ [readme] note need for sudo on recent versions of MacOS - #52

Merged
chicks-net merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
chicks/2026-09-18-issue-34-phase-1
Sep 18, 2026
Merged

chicks-net merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
chicks/2026-09-18-issue-34-phase-1

Conversation

@chicks-net

@chicks-net chicks-net commented Sep 18, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Phase 1 of #34

Done

  • πŸ–‹οΈ [readme] note need for sudo on recent versions of MacOS

Meta

(Automated in .just/gh-process.just.)

Signed-off-by: Christopher Hicks <chicks.net@gmail.com>
@claude

claude Bot commented Sep 18, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Review

Docs-only PR (README, +39/-0), no code changes. Overall this is a well-written, accurate addition that matches the existing README conventions closely (the - dash separator style, the ScreenOutput fenced-code-block convention already used at line 122, MD004: dash list style, and the #macos-note-local-network-permission anchor is correctly derived from the new heading per GitHub's slug rules).

Code quality / style

  • Consistent voice and formatting with the rest of the README; the anchor link in the new "Known bugs β†’ Coming soon" bullet (#macos-note-local-network-permission) resolves correctly.
  • Placement under "Known bugs β†’ Coming soon" for issue macOS Local Network privacy permission blocks locally built ctm binaryΒ #34 is a reasonable fit since it's tracked as an external (Go toolchain) issue rather than an unimplemented feature.

Minor/security note (docs-only, low severity)

  • The sudo ./ctm status ... workaround is accurate (TCC exempts root), but it's worth being a little more explicit that this means running a UDP client against untrusted/unauthenticated network responses as root β€” fine for the ad-hoc "poke at my own clock" case the doc describes, but worth a one-line caveat so readers don't reach for sudo as a default habit for scripts/automation. The doc already hints at this ("lousy for scripts") but doesn't tie it to the privilege angle specifically.
  • Might be worth double-checking the golang/go#70530 issue link still points to the intended upstream tracking issue before merge (external links can drift/renumber), though I have no reason to doubt it here.

Bugs / performance / test coverage

  • N/A β€” no executable code changed, so main_test.go coverage is unaffected. No functional risk from this change.

Nice, concrete addition (the codesign -dv output and the exact write: broken pipe error message make this easy for someone hitting the issue to self-diagnose). No blocking issues from my side.

@chicks-net
chicks-net merged commit e6bebf8 into main Sep 18, 2026
11 checks passed
@chicks-net
chicks-net deleted the chicks/2026-09-18-issue-34-phase-1 branch September 18, 2026 15:12
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant