UDB doesn't generate an error if a profile or CRD specifies a version of an extension not present in the database

[james-ball-qualcomm]

I just noticed that RVA20 has the S extension listed as 1.12 when its yaml file specifies ~> 1.11. Then I looked at the S extension and see it only has version 1.12 and is missing version 1.11. So, it seems like UDB is just using 1.12 since the RVA20 profile yaml says ~> 1.11. However, then the wrong version is reported in the RVA20 PDF.

I suggest that UDB create an error when a profile or CRD specifies a version number not in the database (especially if it requests a lower version number).

We also need to add version 1.11 to the S extension which hopefully we could include in this GitHub issue so we have it available for testing.

[james-ball-qualcomm]

We should re-examine this after Derek's done refactoring arch_def.