'Build' utility must have a new name.

[Hasan Aljudy]

Frits van Bommel wrote:
> 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.

I'm really bad with names, so I'd just go with dbuild. Just make sure 
it's not the name of a linux command or something -.-