Add drake_cc_package_library and library_lint

[jwnimmer-tri]

This should be substantially easier to maintain correct lists, and document for authors the purpose of the package-level library without repeating identical comments everywhere.

This is also a step along the way to #6464, where libdrake will depend on just these package-summary libraries, instead of listing out each individual component.

---

This change is 

[jwnimmer-tri]

+@jamiesnape for design review (or as much code review as you wish also), please.
+@EricCousineau-TRI for feature review, please (waiting until Monday review day is fine).

[EricCousineau-TRI]

---

Reviewed 41 of 41 files at r1.
Review status: all files reviewed at latest revision, all discussions resolved.

---

tools/skylark/drake_cc.bzl, line 346 at r1 (raw file):

def _check_package_library_name(name):
    # Assert that :name is the default libarary for native.package_name().

BTW Spelling libarary should be library

---

tools/skylark/drake_cc.bzl, line 360 at r1 (raw file):

    name matches the current package and whose dependencies are (usually) all
    of the other drake_cc_library targets in the current package.  In short, a
    library named //foo/bar (short for //foo/bar:bar) that convenient provides

BTW Grammar "convenient" should be "conveniently"

---

Comments from Reviewable

[jwnimmer-tri]

@jamiesnape any thoughts?

+@sammy-tri for platform review per schedule (tomorrow), please.
-(status: do not merge)

---

Review status: 39 of 41 files reviewed at latest revision, all discussions resolved.

---

Comments from Reviewable

[sammy-tri]

modulo minor typo issue. I can't say I love the everything idiom for when you only have a single drake_cc_library which was already well formed, but it seems worth it for the lint check.

---

Reviewed 38 of 41 files at r1, 2 of 2 files at r2.
Review status: all files reviewed at latest revision, all discussions resolved.

---

automotive/maliput/api/BUILD.bazel, line 4 at r2 (raw file):

load(
    "@drake//tools/skylark:drake_cc.bzl",

BTW Why do we respell this load() to use @drake//tools but not the one below for `//tools/lint:lint.bzl"?

---

tools/lint/library_lint.bzl, line 15 at r2 (raw file):

    Note that //examples/... packages are excluded from some checks, because
    then should generally not use drake_cc_package_library.

typo "then" instead of "they"?

---

Comments from Reviewable

[jwnimmer-tri]

Review status: 40 of 41 files reviewed at latest revision, 2 unresolved discussions.

---

a discussion (no related file):

I can't say I love the everything idiom for when you only have a single drake_cc_library which was already well formed, but it seems worth it for the lint check.

FYI @sammy-tri In an earlier local draft of this change, I actually had a way to bless the existing cc_library into a cc_package_library without creating an :everything name. However, I felt like the UX of keeping the two ideas separate like I have it here now would be easier for developers to understand in the future. (Build system macros should be relatively more KISS than regular code, I think.)

---

automotive/maliput/api/BUILD.bazel, line 4 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, sammy-tri (Sam Creasey) wrote…

BTW Why do we respell this load() to use @drake//tools but not the one below for `//tools/lint:lint.bzl"?

The //tools:drake.bzl file is deprecated, and it does not offer a drake_cc_package_library forwarding macro. So we need to switch to using the bzl files that its forwarding to, which is //tools/skylark:drake_cc_bzl. That file uses the @drake// spelling to forward into, because unfortunately, due to bazelbuild/bazel#3115 we would get two different and incompatible providers using @drake//tools vs //tools, so we have to carefully use @drake// everywhere.

I don't change lint.bzl load path because there is no need in this PR, and it seems like something I should do globally if I do it.

---

tools/lint/library_lint.bzl, line 15 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, sammy-tri (Sam Creasey) wrote…

typo "then" instead of "they"?

Done.

---

Comments from Reviewable

[sammy-tri]

Reviewed 1 of 41 files at r1, 1 of 1 files at r3.
Review status: all files reviewed at latest revision, all discussions resolved, some commit checks failed.

---

Comments from Reviewable

[jamiesnape]

---

Review status: all files reviewed at latest revision, all discussions resolved, some commit checks failed.

---

Comments from Reviewable