bug#14941: [Patch] Lighten up wrt version specification

[Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>]

> I installed this hunk, but not the other.

IOW, you did not fix bug #14941.  Neither the "this hunk" nor "the
other" you refer to are part of the bug 14941 thread; they are part of
#15108.  Please change bug #14941 to "wont-fix", which correctly reflects
its new status.

> If a "Version:" header is missing, it should stay as an error, because
> package.el relies heavily on version numbers.

There is no such "because" - illogical.  That package.el relies heavily
on version numbers is irrelevant.  It need not rely on the presence of
a `Version:' specification to nevertheless rely on a version number.

It need simply consider lack of an explicit `Version:' spec as
specifying version 0.  It is reasonable to have a default behavior,
and that is the right default value.

As for `Version: ' vs `Version: 0': As the bug #14941 report says, an
empty version field can indicate - to human readers - that the file is
not versioned.  For package.el it means only that any version will do
when the file is required.  But to humans it can indicate more: that the
file is not versioned.  This is a minor point, but there is no reason
for package.el to require the explicit "0".

It's a program.  It can assume "0" for an empty field here, just as it
can assume `Version: 0' for no version spec.