News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:GitHub responds to Dear GitHub letter by mcguire on Friday February 12, 2016 @04:59PM (#11090996)
"The low point was in 2014 when I was trying to compile a package that intentionally did not ship a configure file and made the user explicitly call autoconf."

At the risk of having to admit I've had my share of bad experiences with autotools, don't ever do that. That is a big sign with flashing lights and sirens, saying that you should put that package down and leave it alone. Because...

"This would have been ok except that in the 3 or so years between when the code was released and I was trying to build it, autotools made some backward-incompatible changes and autoconf/automake errored out, with no indication of how to fix those."

The version of autotools someone was using when they wrote the scripts is very closely tied to the scripts. It's not at all a good idea to use a different version of the autotools.

Re:GitHub responds to Dear GitHub letter by cdcarter on Saturday February 13, 2016 @12:11AM (#11092658)
> At the risk of having to admit I've had my share of bad experiences with autotools, don't ever do that. That is a big sign with flashing lights and sirens, saying that you should put that package down and leave it alone. Because...

And indeed, the exact issue the OP is complaining about is how the zipfile automatically created by GitHub has NOT had autotools run on it yet, and the maintainer cannot even manually overwrite that file!