Some git ones like this issue don't have regular configure and Makefile.in files. That's why automake and autoconf scripts is used. And some developers use a specific or custom version of ld10k1 with its automake macros and which the user would not have. Or it may be that automake/autoconf the user has is different from the upstream version. But in regualr tarball configure only checks for header and libraries to produce Makefile.

Sorry, wrong. Getting source from GIT doesn't get you a different build/compile option than getting it via tar. Most HTTP GIT links only download the current GIT offering IN A TARBALL.

If you had bothered to look, the tarball from alsa-tools has both a makefile, AND a gitcompile option...BOTH come in it. And both come in the version you check out from the GIT repository.

There is a difference between a release tarball and a git tarball.

Ok the release tarball has gitcompile and it invokes automake/autoconf scripts. But read the INSTALL file. It supports the simple ./configure && make install.

And git clone doesn't has Makefile nor configure file only configure.ac and makefile.am. So you would need automake/autoconf macros of all programs that alsa-utils needs for creating configure and makefile.in.

In contrast consider a release tarball it has makefile.in and configure. Run configure with your required options and it produces working Makefile. If you don't want ld10k1 you can just give disable option to configue script.

No, there STILL isn't, and you're STILL WRONG.
...and the EXACT SAME FILES are present in a tarball...so what's your point?
AGAIN, the "git clone" GIVES YOU EXACTLY WHATEVER THE DEVELOPER WANTS TO GIVE YOU. Downloading a tarball does the EXACT same thing...if there's a configure file, it's there in both versions.

The ONLY difference (MAYBE), is if you checkout a different version of the code from GIT, versus tar. You obviously haven't done a git checkout/clone of that, and compared it to the tarball. Because if you had, you'd notice THEY ARE IDENTICAL.