'Build' utility must have a new name.

[Derek]

According to some, the utility progam that I'm responsible for, currently
called 'Build' has a poor choice as a name. So may I please ask the D
community for nominations of a new name for the utility?

I quote ...
"
build is rather common and collision prone name. I'm not even talking about
googlin' it. In *nix environments you can expect other tools to use "build"
binary or Linux user to use build as an alias or something like that. 

While I'm doing D-related packages for ArchLinux? - I can say that many
package maintainers (especially those with maaany packages) will change
binary name from build to something else. The problems is - it should be
one, standard name. It is very important for feature build/configure
scripts to use one hardcoded name that will not change. Imagine that debian
people will rename build to dbuild and suse to dlang-build. Building
project using build will be mess then - no simple instructions can be give
to common linux user and dummy Makefiles (that will just run build
transparently will get complicated. Things gets complicated -> D fans loose
much. 

If build wants to be standard D tool on Linux it has to change binary name
and stay with it.
"

I have no investment in any specific name for the utility, so give me some
ideas. I'll attempt to sort out a consensus for a new name but if I can't
I'll just pick one anyhow.

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
"Down with mediocrity!"