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!"

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.

Derek here's a few names that are mostly short:

bud - Build Utility for D
forgeD - (meaning: Make out of components)
dccu - D Component Creator Utility
dggu - D's Gather and Glue Utility
dub - D's Utility to Build
dfpd - D's focal-point builder

 and of course "dbuild" would work as well.

David L.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Dare to reach for the Stars...Dare to Dream, Build, and Achieve!"
-------------------------------------------------------------------

MKoD: http://spottedtiger.tripod.com/D_Language/D_Main_XP.html

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 -.-

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.
> 

Another vote for dbuild.

-- 
Kirk McDonald
Pyd: Wrapping Python with D
http://dsource.org/projects/pyd/wiki

Kirk McDonald 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.
>>
> 
> Another vote for dbuild.
> 

yup

freeagle escribió:
>>
>> Another vote for dbuild.
>>
> 
> yup

Same here.

-- 
Carlos Santander Bernal

"Carlos Santander" <csantander619@gmail.com> wrote in message news:eagiin$1lad$2@digitaldaemon.com...

> freeagle escribió:
>>>
>>> Another vote for dbuild.
>>>
>>
>> yup
>
> Same here.

And again.

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 09:04:26 -0700, David L. Davis <SpottedTiger@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Derek here's a few names that are mostly short:
>
> bud - Build Utility for D
> forgeD - (meaning: Make out of components)
> dccu - D Component Creator Utility
> dggu - D's Gather and Glue Utility
> dub - D's Utility to Build
> dfpd - D's focal-point builder
>
>  and of course "dbuild" would work as well.
>
> David L.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Dare to reach for the Stars...Dare to Dream, Build, and Achieve!"
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> MKoD: http://spottedtiger.tripod.com/D_Language/D_Main_XP.html
>
>


Strangely, I like "bud". :)

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> "Carlos Santander" <csantander619@gmail.com> wrote in message news:eagiin$1lad$2@digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>> freeagle escribió:
>>>> Another vote for dbuild.
>>>>
>>> yup
>> Same here.
> 
> And again. 

I like dbuild too. Some googling on dbuild gives:

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/13909.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ctrl_dbuild

"dbuild" seems to be some sort of Debian utility:

http://lists.debian.org/debian-arm/1999/02/msg00003.html

http://www.openlaszlo.org/pipermail/laszlo-builds/2006-June/000136.html