www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - 'Build' utility must have a new name.

reply Derek <derek psyc.ward> writes:
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!"
Jul 29 2006
next sibling parent reply Frits van Bommel <fvbommel REMwOVExCAPSs.nl> writes:
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.
Jul 29 2006
parent Hasan Aljudy <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> writes:
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 -.-
Jul 29 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "David L. Davis" <SpottedTiger yahoo.com> writes:
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
Jul 29 2006
next sibling parent "John Reimer" <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
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". :)
Jul 29 2006
prev sibling parent Alexander Panek <alexander.panek brainsware.org> writes:
David L. Davis 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
 
 


One (vote for) bud please!
Aug 06 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Kirk McDonald <kirklin.mcdonald gmail.com> writes:
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
Jul 29 2006
parent reply freeagle <freeagle inmail.sk> writes:
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
Jul 29 2006
parent reply Carlos Santander <csantander619 gmail.com> writes:
freeagle escribió:

 Another vote for dbuild.


 
 yup


Same here.

-- 
Carlos Santander Bernal
Jul 29 2006
parent reply "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:
"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.
Jul 29 2006
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:
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
Jul 29 2006
parent =?iso-8859-1?q?Knud_S=F8rensen?= <12tkvvb02 sneakemail.com> writes:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 15:27:34 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:


 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


no, a search for the dbuild package don't give anything.
http://packages.debian.org/cgi-bin/search_packages.pl?suite=all&subword=1&exact=&arch=any&section=all&case=insensitive&keywords=debuild&searchon=names

but there is a debuild package.
Jul 29 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "David L. Davis" <SpottedTiger yahoo.com> writes:
Here's a few more suggestions:

dmdbuild - Digital Mars D Build(er)
dsbuild - D Source Build(er)

dmerge - Merge D sources togather
dprism - gathers all D sources into one focal-point executable
deploy - build D sources for deployment
dpkg   - Package together D sources

David L.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Dare to reach for the Stars...Dare to Dream, Build, and Achieve!"
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jul 29 2006
next sibling parent Tom S <h3r3tic remove.mat.uni.torun.pl> writes:
David L. Davis wrote:

 Here's a few more suggestions:
 
 dmdbuild - Digital Mars D Build(er)
 dsbuild - D Source Build(er)
 
 dmerge - Merge D sources togather
 dprism - gathers all D sources into one focal-point executable
 deploy - build D sources for deployment
 dpkg   - Package together D sources


buildy [ pronounced Buil-Dee ] :D
Jul 29 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Frits van Bommel <fvbommel REMwOVExCAPSs.nl> writes:
David L. Davis wrote:

 dpkg   - Package together D sources


Heh... I don't think many Debian users will like that one (Google it 
unless that was a joke)
Jul 29 2006
next sibling parent Hasan Aljudy <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> writes:
Frits van Bommel wrote:

 David L. Davis wrote:
 

 dpkg   - Package together D sources


 
 
 Heh... I don't think many Debian users will like that one (Google it 
 unless that was a joke)


lol, who would think that name was taken?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dpkg
dpkg is the base of the Debian package management system
Jul 29 2006
prev sibling parent "David L. Davis" <SpottedTiger yahoo.com> writes:
"Frits van Bommel" <fvbommel REMwOVExCAPSs.nl> wrote in message 
news:eagv3q$2l7i$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 David L. Davis wrote:

 dpkg   - Package together D sources


 Heh... I don't think many Debian users will like that one (Google it 
 unless that was a joke)


Opps! I was just brain-storming a few names (as Derek had ask us to do)...I 
didn't really check Google on it. Thanks, for pointing it out.

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
Jul 29 2006
prev sibling parent reply Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
David L. Davis wrote:

 Here's a few more suggestions:
 
 dmdbuild - Digital Mars D Build(er)


<snip>

Can't it use GDC instead of DMD?  To make it compatible with as many D 
compilers as possible would be a good course of action for the future, 
thereby warranting a compiler-neutral name.

Stewart.

-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:-  C++  a->--- UB  P+ L E  W++  N+++ o K-  w++  O? M V? PS- 
PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on 
the 'group where everyone may benefit.
Jul 30 2006
parent reply "David L. Davis" <SpottedTiger yahoo.com> writes:
"Stewart Gordon" <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:eaiqns$1760$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 David L. Davis wrote:

 Here's a few more suggestions:

 dmdbuild - Digital Mars D Build(er)


 <snip>

 Can't it use GDC instead of DMD?  To make it compatible with as many D 
 compilers as possible would be a good course of action for the future, 
 thereby warranting a compiler-neutral name.

 Stewart.

 -- 
 -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
 Version: 3.1
 GCS/M d- s:-  C++  a->--- UB  P+ L E  W++  N+++ o K-  w++  O? M V? PS- PE- 
 Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++++ h-- r-- !y
 ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

 My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on the 
 'group where everyone may benefit.


Stewart, roger that...I agree with your point! That's why everyone, myself 
included are mainly looking at "dbuild" as the new name.

dmdbuild - this suggestion is now changed to "dobuild", for D Object 
Build(er)  - the name is a bit catchier! :)

Also, forgive me for my lack of knowledge in this area (because I've only 
used WinXP and DMD), but what is the executable name of D with the GDC 
compiler, is it named something like gdc.exe?

Thanks in advance for your reply,
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
Jul 30 2006
parent Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
David L. Davis wrote:
<snip>

 Also, forgive me for my lack of knowledge in this area (because I've only 
 used WinXP and DMD), but what is the executable name of D with the GDC 
 compiler, is it named something like gdc.exe?


<snip>

In short, it's gdc.  Whether it has the ".exe" on the end would depend 
on the platform.  This is one that matches GCC's CLUI rather than DMD's.

GDC also includes a wrapper, also called dmd, which provides a DMD-like 
CLUI for GDC.  I've also somewhere seen gdmd, but I'm not sure of the 
difference.

Stewart.

-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:-  C++  a->--- UB  P+ L E  W++  N+++ o K-  w++  O? M V? PS- 
PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on 
the 'group where everyone may benefit.
Aug 01 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent "Kent Boogaart" <kentcb internode.on.net> writes:
duild-o?

I like dbuild.

KB

"Derek" <derek psyc.ward> wrote in message 
news:jq6ezl23l08e.1qvo0qdaexhy0.dlg 40tude.net...

 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!"
Jul 29 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent reply clayasaurus <clayasaurus gmail.com> writes:
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.
 


Here are some...

Thesaurus.com + lame 'd' naming scheme, remove D for a unique name...

* d-construct
* d-raise
* d-rear
* d-synth
* d-velop (DeeVelop aka develop)
* d-wax
* d-amass
* d-chunk
* d-horde
* d-heap
* d-annex
* d-beef
* d-sweet

Microsoft Naming Scheme...
* Xbuild
* Xdevelop
* xena
* xbuild3.14 (hey, it worked for xbox360, substitute any number that is 
'cool' and 'hip')
* xotus (exodus)


Unique names...
* snowball
* avalanche
* gather
* bigbang
* ehorizon (event horizon)

That's all I can think of for now.
~ Clay
Jul 29 2006
parent reply "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:
"clayasaurus" <clayasaurus gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:eah7hs$2t71$1 digitaldaemon.com...


 Here are some...



 * d-beef


Yes.  That is IT.
Jul 29 2006
parent Dave <Dave_member pathlink.com> writes:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:

 "clayasaurus" <clayasaurus gmail.com> wrote in message 
 news:eah7hs$2t71$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 

 Here are some...


 

 * d-beef


 
 Yes.  That is IT. 
 
 


Where's d-beef?
Jul 29 2006
prev sibling next sibling parent Dawid =?UTF-8?B?Q2nEmcW8YXJraWV3aWN6?= <dawid.ciezarkiewicz gmail.com> writes:
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?


dbuild is perfectly fine
Jul 30 2006
prev sibling parent Derek <derek psyc.ward> writes:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 22:29:22 +1000, Derek wrote:



 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.


I've started a Wiki page on the utility's project site to collect ideas and
'votes'.

  http://www.dsource.org/projects/build/wiki/Build_Remaining

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
"Down with mediocrity!"
Jul 30 2006