> > Most experience with autoconf/automake is all negative. The promise was "never debug your Makefile ever 
> > again!", delivered was "debug the configure script instead!". 
> 
> I admit that the new one is fit to my flavor. For a common user, I think, a simple procedure of configure/make/install
> is better than changing the Makefile manually because many users are lack of knowledges about Makefile. That's why 
> I want to learn autotools.

The reality is that you will never deliver a Makefile/Configure script that works for everybody in every case - users will always have a need to tweak the build 
process to suit their needs. In this situation, "Makefile" is a much better language and "make" is a much better tool for users to deal with - much simpler, better 
documented and better understood compared to autotools (*nobody* understands autotools; also compare the size of the midas Makefile with the size of a 
typical configure script).

Anyhow, we will be cross-compiling midas to run on a PowerPC processor inside a Virtex4 FPGA. Go handle that with configure scripts.

K.O.