userdb: add birthDate field to JSON user records by dylanmtaylor · Pull Request #40954 · systemd/systemd
github.com
Stores the user's birth date for age verification, as required by recent laws in California (AB-1043), Colorado (SB26-051), Brazil (Lei 15.211/2025), etc. The xdg-desktop-portal project is addi...

Fork time? Maybe all the anti-systemd zealots were right all along…

Edit: To address whether it is likely that this change will affect users: Gnome is planning a stronger dependence on userdb, the part of systemd where this change is being implemented. https://blogs.gnome.org/adrianvovk/2025/06/10/gnome-systemd-dependencies/

Final Edit: The PR has been merged into main.

  • Cease@mander.xyz
    281·
    3 days ago

    It’s so hilarious that the most recent thing that’s happened on this shitty PR is a request for Claude to review their code.

    • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
      91·
      2 days ago

      Well, 2 out of 6 people have approved now and the person who requested for a review from Claude is Poettering himself.

      Not sure I’m a fan of AI being used in the development of systemd, but at least for now it seems they don’t want it to be built by stupid AI pull requests:

      If you use an AI code generator such as ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, Llama or a similar tool, this must be disclosed in the commit messages by adding e.g. Co-developed-by: Claude Opus 4.6 noreply@anthropic.com and pull request description.

      The quality bar for contributions to this project is high, and unlikely to be met by an unattended AI tool, without significant manual corrections. Always thoroughly review and correct any such outputs, for example ensuring it accurately follows Coding Style at the very minimum. Please do not fire-and-forget pull requests without any human intervention and review, as that will likely result in low-quality results that will not be accepted, and if done repeatedly, may result in the account being blocked. As with any other submissions, authors are responsible for doing due diligence and ensuring their submissions are compatible with the project’s license as documented in LICENSES/README.md.

      As a guideline, if someone notices that a contribution (code, issues, comments) was made with the help of AI, there was likely a lack of human review of the AI generated output.

      I can see it being useful to invoke an AI review in addition to humans reviewing, just in case it catches something nobody else did.