'Build' utility must have a new name.

[Frits van Bommel]

Derek wrote:
> 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.

Well, how about the first one mentioned in that comment: dbuild.
It has several advantages:
* Rather short - easy to type in a shell.
* To the point - does exactly what it says.
* Minimal change from current name - still familiar to current users.