bazelisk(-bin): Add both `bazel` and `bazelisk` to path about pkgbuilds

[sudoforge]

The Homebrew and NPM packages add both bazelisk and bazel, yes, but personally, I'd like to understand the use case a bit more before emulating that behavior. Could you explain what the different use cases are, if any, for having both bazel and bazelisk available in your PATH?

---

Also, I think it's important to differentiate between what the Homebrew and NPM packages do, and what is being suggested. Specifically, from the README:

Some ideas how to use it:

Install it as the bazel binary in your PATH (e.g. copy it to /usr/local/bin/bazel). Never worry about upgrading Bazel to the latest version again.

...

If you install Bazelisk as bazel on your CI machines, too, you can even ...

[mothran]

I just encountered this issue and I would like just add that I have encountered build systems that explicitly call bazelisk. So having both targets would be more widely compatible, it also would match the official installer script, from the README:

Each adds bazelisk to the PATH as both bazelisk and bazel.

[sudoforge]

I have encountered build systems that explicitly call bazelisk

This is not the intended workflow, and those build systems are probably doing something wrong. They should simply call out to bazel.

Regardless, this is such a small change and is simple to implement; I'll concede that some people may benefit from having both a bazel and bazelisk call invoke the same executable (bazelisk), and add a symlink.