cli: add +boo command

[rockorager]

Add a +boo command to show the animation from the website. The data
for the frames is compressed during the build process. This build step
was added to the SharedDeps object because it is used in both
libghostty and in binaries.

The compression is done as follows:

• All files are concatenated together using \x01 as a combining byte
• The files are compressed to a cached build file
• A zig file is written to stdout which @embedFiles the compressed
  file and exposes it to the importer
• A new anonymous module "framedata" is added in the SharedDeps object

Any file can import framedata and access the compressed bytes via
framedata.compressed. In the boo command, we decompress the slice and
split it into frames for use in the animation.

The overall addition to the binary size is 348k.

[rockorager]

I thought maybe it was related to my updating of libvaxis (and maybe having multiple zg unicode copies available since zf uses vaxis also), but no...rolling that portion of the commit back yields exactly the same binary size.

[rockorager]

I also tried using the zig std.compress.zlib (which we use for kitty graphics already) namespace, even though this is using flate under the hood. No appreciable change in binary size (~10 bytes smaller)

[rockorager]

I also tried passing the build script the directory of the frames_*.txt and reading them, instead of embedding them in case somehow we were getting artifacts from that. No dice...same binary size.

[jcollie]

Would it make sense to add https://github.com/ghostty-org/website to build.zig.zon and get the frames from there, rather than copying them into the Ghostty source code? Won't help the binary size but seems "cleaner" to me.

[rockorager]

Would it make sense to add `https://github.com/ghostty-org/website` to `build.zig.zon` and get the frames from there, rather than copying them into the Ghostty source code? Won't help the binary size but seems "cleaner" to me.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

[SohelIslamImran]

I think this should be totally optional and standalone, and shouldn't be included in the binary

[tristan957]

I think this should be totally optional and standalone, and shouldn't be included in the binary

Please explain why.

[rhodes-b]

I think this should be totally optional and standalone, and shouldn't be included in the binary

patches are always something optional you can apply as well