We introduce a new package structure for Coq:

- `coq-core`: Coq's OCaml tools code and plugins
- `coq-stdlib`: Coq's stdlib [.vo files]
- `coq`: meta-package that pulls `coq-{core,stdlib}`

This has several advantages, in particular it allows to install Coq
without the stdlib which is useful in several scenarios, it also open
the door towards a versioning of the stdlib at the package level.

The main user-visible change is that Coq's ML development files now
live in `$lib/coq-core`, for compatibility in the regular build we
install a symlink and support both setups for a while.

Note that plugin developers and even `coq_makefile` should actually
rely on `ocamlfind` to locate Coq's OCaml libs as to be more robust.

There is a transient state where we actually look for both
`$coqlib/plugins` and `$coqlib/../coq-core/plugins` as to support
the non-ocamlfind plus custom variables.

This will be much improved once #13617 is merged (which requires this
PR first), then, we will introduce a `coq.boot` library so finally
`coqdep`, `coqchk`, etc... can share the same path setup code.

IMHO the plan should work fine.

It is the only place where it starts making sense in the whole codebase. It also
fits nicely there since there are other functions manipulating this type in that
module.

In any case this type does not belong to the kernel.

We replace Coq's use of `Big_int` and `num` by the ZArith OCaml
library which is a more modern version.

We switch the core files and easy plugins only for now, more complex
numerical plugins will be done in their own commit.

We thus keep the num library linked for now until all plugins are
ported.

Co-authored-by: Vincent Laporte <Vincent.Laporte@fondation-inria.fr>

This makes the test suite Omega.v compatible with Mangle Names

Not sure how `reintroduce` works since it ignores the refreshed name,
considering omega is deprecated it's not worth figuring out so long as
it works (NB making it use intro_mustbe_force makes the test suite
fail so it must be doing something right).

Current backtraces for tactics leave a bit to desire, for example
given the program:

```coq
Lemma u n : n + 0 = n.
rewrite plus_O_n.
```

the backtrace stops at:

```
Found no subterm matching "0 + ?M160" in the current goal.
Called from file "proofs/proof.ml", line 381, characters 4-42
Called from file "tactics/pfedit.ml", line 102, characters 31-58
Called from file "plugins/ltac/g_ltac.mlg", line 378, characters 8-84
```

Backtrace information `?info` is as of today optional in some tactics,
such as `tclZERO`, it doesn't cost a lot  however to reify backtrace
information indeed in `tclZERO` and provide backtraces for all tactic
errors. The cost should be small if we are not in debug mode.

The backtrace for the failed rewrite is now:

```
Found no subterm matching "0 + ?M160" in the current goal.
Raised at file "pretyping/unification.ml", line 1827, characters 14-73
Called from file "pretyping/unification.ml", line 1929, characters 17-53
Called from file "pretyping/unification.ml", line 1948, characters 22-72
Called from file "pretyping/unification.ml", line 2020, characters 14-56
Re-raised at file "pretyping/unification.ml", line 2021, characters 66-73
Called from file "proofs/clenv.ml", line 254, characters 12-58
Called from file "proofs/clenvtac.ml", line 95, characters 16-53
Called from file "engine/proofview.ml", line 1110, characters 40-46
Called from file "engine/proofview.ml", line 1115, characters 10-34
Re-raised at file "clib/exninfo.ml", line 82, characters 4-38
Called from file "proofs/proof.ml", line 381, characters 4-42
Called from file "tactics/pfedit.ml", line 102, characters 31-58
Called from file "plugins/ltac/g_ltac.mlg", line 378, characters 8-84
```

which IMO is much better.

This completes a pure Dune bootstrap of Coq.

There is still the question if we should modify `coqdep` so it does
output a dependency on `Init.Prelude.vo` in certain cases.

TODO: We still double-add `theories` and `plugins` [in coqinit and in
Dune], this should be easy to clean up.

Setting `libs_init_load_path` does give a correct build indeed;
however we still must call this for compatibility?

Reviewed-by: ejgallego
Reviewed-by: ppedrot

Add headers to a few files which were missing them.