[Azure-*] Remove version constraint

[PhoebeHui]

Fixes #19267

This version constraint used in related ports cause the failures in manifest mode. See #18779 (comment)

Failures:

Error: no version entry for azure-storage-common-cpp at version 12.0.0.
We are currently using the version in the ports tree (12.0.1).
Error: no version entry for azure-core-cpp at version 1.0.0.
We are currently using the version in the ports tree (1.1.0).
Error: no version entry for azure-storage-blobs-cpp at version 12.0.0.
We are currently using the version in the ports tree (12.0.1).
Error: no version entry for azure-storage-common-cpp at version 12.0.0.
We are currently using the version in the ports tree (12.0.1).

cc @ahsonkhan cc @RickWinter, @vhvb1989

[MarkVabulas]

Thank you, this fixes the issues raised in #19267

[antkmsft]

@PhoebeHui, @ras0219-msft, what should be our approach with version constraints now?
These versions should have version entries, because we released them after the feature was public.
I can see an entry for the version 1.0.0, for example: https://github.com/microsoft/vcpkg/blob/master/versions/a-/azure-core-cpp.json#L8-L12
Is this a way the bug should have been fixed?

You asked us to remove the version constraint for the old version of libcurl, with explanation that old versions are not backfilled (https://github.com/microsoft/vcpkg/pull/18779/files/0863a7b31bccd855731024083a2505c2b41bdd66), but with azure-sdk releases it should not be the case?

We release azure-core version 1.2.0, and are release azure-identity version 1.1.0, which will only compile with azure-core 1.2.0, how should we manifest that? You removed "version>=", is there other way?
And if not, how do we get there to achieve what we want?

Out of curiosity, if we should not be using version>= in this case, what scenarios should version>= be used in?

And also, if this is something that should not be used, is it possible to enforce it via CI checks? Last time, CI did not catch using the version constraint with libcurl, here we are updating the manifests retroactively - I think, if CI was clearer about this, it would've been better for all.