No. They didn't. Operation Catapult did sour Franco-British relations during the war itself, making, for example, recruitment into the Free French more difficult. And, of course, after many remaining French capital ships were scuttled at Toulon to prevent falling into German hands, the French believed they had demonstrated both their honor & the needlessness of the Mers-el-Kebir attack. Certainly this sentiment carried over into the post-war world, especially among the armed forces. But when you consider that the French had agreed to neutralize their ships prior to the Armistice, then later agreed to bring them back into French ports under occupation, it was difficult to hold Churchill in the wrong.

Admiral Somerville, who carried out the attack, believed it would permanently harm British credibility as an ally, but of course it did the opposite. FDR could assure Congress that the fifty destroyers the British coveted wouldn't likely fall into German hands. It made the entire Lend-Lease program work that much better.

Of course, that's not what you asked. I know that in spite of anti-British sentiment, exacerbated by Goebbels during the occupation, very little of it carried over past the war into practical relations. DeGaulle had been supported as the leader of first the Free French, then France herself. His focus was on restoring the country & her colonial empire, & so couldn't afford to maintain grudges.

My own opinion, take it what you will, is that ordering Catapult was likely the single most momentous & consequential decision of World War Two, because not only did it demonstrate Britain's resolve & open Lend-Lease, it also may have inspired FDR to initiate an undeclared naval war against the Kriegsmarine that prompted Hitler to declare war after Pearl Harbor & resolve any remaining vestiges of America First! isolationism.

I believe it would very difficult, even in light of the Toulon scuttlings, for French leaders & historians to find fault with Mers-el-Kebir given those circumstances.