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

[Drew Adams]

> > There is no such "because" - illogical.  That package.el relies heavily
> > on version numbers is irrelevant.
>
> Of course it's relevant.  It means that unversioned packages are (very)
> rare.

Once again you've distorted things by cutting out the context and the
argument.  An unfortunate MO.

You claimed that BECAUSE package.el relies heavily on version numbers it
NEEDS explicit `Version:' specs as well.  That is the invalid argument I
flagged.  As you are well aware, I'm sure.

   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.

And now you make another invalid argument:

> [That package.el relies heavily on version numbers] MEANS that
> unversioned packages are (very) rare.

It of course means no such thing.

Perhaps you are really trying to say that BECAUSE package.el requires
explicit version specs, packages without them are rare?  That would be
a valid argument, but irrelevant - see above: versioned (for package.el)
need not imply an explicit version spec.

(And as I said, that package.el needs a version (explicit or by default)
for its own use does not imply that humans might not consider a given
file otherwise unversioned.)

Finally, another invalid argument:

You now use the fact that you see few headers with spec `Version: 0',
and few with no `Version:' spec, as evidence that there would also be
few such even if package did not require a non-blank `Version:' spec.
That doesn't follow either.

Obviously, if you require every package to be painted blue then you
will see, as a result, mainly - no, only - blue packages.

Again, please classify bug #14941 as "wont-fix", since your decision
was not to fix it.