Jan Danielsson wrote:
>    Am I correct in assuming that the configure-scripts are a
> semi-standard for build systems in Unix-systems (I don't think I've seen
> a single Unix-aware build system which *doesn't* have a configure
> script). Is it safe to assume that an application/library tarball will
> have a configure script? Am I also correct in assuming that most
> programs do in fact require patches, or tweaks, in order to build and
> install properly (on NetBSD/pkgsrc)?

Configure scripts are common but far from universal.  For counterargument
and counterexample, cf. imap-wu and its FAQ.  Take your time.  ;-) 

>    Oh, while I'm at it.. What is autoconf in this context, which I see
> references to sometimes?

Configure scripts are the output of the "autotools", beginning with
autoconf.  

http://sourceware.org/autobook/

Includes a pretty good description of the evolution and motivation of
autoconf & co.  

Working with autoconf is never unalloyed joy, but it does help to make
applications portable in two OS dimensions: vendor and version.  

Kind regards, 

--jkl