cksum: Replace hashsum with cksum symlinks

[oech3]

1. Closes Multi-call hashsum binary is no longer necessary #4414 ,hashsum does not accept --length #10044,but still multicall binary.
2. Fix md5sum --text --tag for GNU compat
3. Preliminary for clap 5 migration
   This code is designed to use clap and hot fix for clap's bug instead of manual parsing if possible.

[github-actions]

GNU testsuite comparison:

GNU test failed: tests/cksum/b2sum. tests/cksum/b2sum is passing on 'main'. Maybe you have to rebase?
GNU test failed: tests/cksum/md5sum. tests/cksum/md5sum is passing on 'main'. Maybe you have to rebase?
GNU test failed: tests/cksum/md5sum-bsd. tests/cksum/md5sum-bsd is passing on 'main'. Maybe you have to rebase?
GNU test failed: tests/cksum/md5sum-newline. tests/cksum/md5sum-newline is passing on 'main'. Maybe you have to rebase?
GNU test failed: tests/cksum/sha1sum. tests/cksum/sha1sum is passing on 'main'. Maybe you have to rebase?
GNU test failed: tests/cksum/sha1sum-vec. tests/cksum/sha1sum-vec is passing on 'main'. Maybe you have to rebase?
GNU test failed: tests/cksum/sha224sum. tests/cksum/sha224sum is passing on 'main'. Maybe you have to rebase?
GNU test failed: tests/cksum/sha256sum. tests/cksum/sha256sum is passing on 'main'. Maybe you have to rebase?
GNU test failed: tests/cksum/sha384sum. tests/cksum/sha384sum is passing on 'main'. Maybe you have to rebase?
GNU test failed: tests/cksum/sha512sum. tests/cksum/sha512sum is passing on 'main'. Maybe you have to rebase?

[codspeed-hq]

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging this PR will improve performance by ×8,400

_{Comparing oech3:cksum-ln (f9930ce) with main (bb88fb2)}

Summary

⚡ 14 improved benchmarks
✅ 128 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 37 skipped benchmarks¹

Performance Changes

	Benchmark	BASE	HEAD	Efficiency
⚡	cksum_crc	16,740.7 µs	215.6 µs	×78
⚡	cksum_crc32b	13,129.7 µs	215.7 µs	×61
⚡	cksum_sm3	1,551,277.1 µs	216.2 µs	×7,200
⚡	cksum_blake2b	192,755.5 µs	214 µs	×900
⚡	cksum_sha384	1,105,747.2 µs	218.3 µs	×5,100
⚡	cksum_sha256	1,727,111.4 µs	216.5 µs	×8,000
⚡	cksum_sha3	1,828,118.2 µs	216.6 µs	×8,400
⚡	cksum_md5	317,939.7 µs	217.6 µs	×1,500
⚡	cksum_sha2	1,727,010.8 µs	215.3 µs	×8,000
⚡	cksum_sysv	48,157.7 µs	217 µs	×220
⚡	cksum_sha512	1,105,738 µs	214.9 µs	×5,100
⚡	cksum_sha1	723,045 µs	214.5 µs	×3,400
⚡	cksum_sha224	1,727,097.6 µs	215.6 µs	×8,000
⚡	cksum_bsd	128,329.9 µs	214.6 µs	×600

Footnotes

1. 37 benchmarks were skipped, so the baseline results were used instead. If they were deleted from the codebase, click here and archive them to remove them from the performance reports. ↩

[github-actions]

GNU testsuite comparison:

Congrats! The gnu test tests/shuf/shuf-reservoir is no longer failing!
Congrats! The gnu test tests/sort/sort-stale-thread-mem is no longer failing!

[oech3]

This is an example. If maintainer prefer individual bins, thats OK.
But in my thought, many LoC is needed to do that.

[github-actions]

GNU testsuite comparison:

GNU test failed: tests/shuf/shuf-reservoir. tests/shuf/shuf-reservoir is passing on 'main'. Maybe you have to rebase?
GNU test failed: tests/sort/sort-stale-thread-mem. tests/sort/sort-stale-thread-mem is passing on 'main'. Maybe you have to rebase?
Skip an intermittent issue tests/timeout/timeout (fails in this run but passes in the 'main' branch)
Congrats! The gnu test tests/tty/tty-eof is no longer failing!

[github-actions]

GNU testsuite comparison:

GNU test failed: tests/shuf/shuf-reservoir. tests/shuf/shuf-reservoir is passing on 'main'. Maybe you have to rebase?
GNU test failed: tests/sort/sort-stale-thread-mem. tests/sort/sort-stale-thread-mem is passing on 'main'. Maybe you have to rebase?
Congrats! The gnu test tests/printf/printf-surprise is now passing!

[github-actions]

GNU testsuite comparison:

Congrats! The gnu test tests/stty/bad-speed is now passing!