Implementation of Cake tab with instructions for NuGet packages

[augustoproiete]

Add installation instructions of NuGet packages in Cake scripts.

Credits to Nils Andresen ( @nils-a ), member of the Cake team, who did all the hard work 💪

🧩	Packages identified as Cake extension of type "Addin" (via tags)
	Packages of type Dependency that have the tag cake-addin

---

🧩	Packages identified as Cake extension of type "Module" (via tags)
	Packages of type Dependency that have the tag cake-module

---

🧩	Packages identified as Cake extension of type "Recipe" (via tags)
	Packages of type Dependency that have the tag cake-recipe

---

📦	Packages identified as Dependency (via PackageType)
	Packages of type Dependency

---

/cc @joelverhagen

Addresses #8381

[joelverhagen]

/cc @jcjiang and @JonDouglas, could you take a look?

I have a couple code level comment but I'd like your input on:

1. Should we add the "Cake" tab to .NET tools as well (see the last screenshot above). It was not spec'd but it seems like a reasonable addition especially given there is only a single tab there today. I'll let you make the call.
2. Should selecting the "Cake" tab on a dependency package make it stick to "Cake" on a tool package as well? My thought is no. We shouldn't assume the user selection on one usage pattern (dependency package) indicates anything about a different usage pattern (.net tool). If we decouple them the default selected tab can still both be Cake but the user will have to select it separately on the two page types.

[joelverhagen]

@augustoproiete - could we split out the .NET tools change to another PR? The .NET tool part was not reviewed by the team when I presented your proposal internally and we would need more feedback from the .NET CLI folks for the .NET tools change. They essentially own that experience and should be included in the discussion. (similar to the local tools proposal you have)

We can block this PR on that discussion or we can split out the .NET tool part and have a separate proposal/discussion/PR on it (that will probably be quicker E2E than this one but is earlier in the lifecycle than the proposal associated with this PR). It's up to you!

[augustoproiete]

@joelverhagen Thanks for the review!! I'll address the code-level comments later tonight, and will move the .NET Tools part to a separate PR so it doesn't block the other features from moving forward.

[augustoproiete]

@joelverhagen This is ready for round 2. All your comments have been addressed.

I removed the Cake tab from .NET Tool packages, and will send a separate PR with that.

[joelverhagen]

This is looking really good. @NuGet/gallery-team - could I get another pair of eyes on here?

[augustoproiete]

@joelverhagen This is ready for round 3. All your comments have been addressed.

[loic-sharma]

Looks great, nice work! 🎉

[lyndaidaii]

Looks good to me, great work. 🥇

[joelverhagen]

CI is green. Great work!

[JonDouglas]

🚢