Remove linkstatic boilerplate.

[david-german-tri]

Fixes #5104.

@jwnimmer-tri for both levels of review.

---

This change is 

[david-german-tri]

@drake-jenkins-bot mac-clang-bazel-experimental please

[jwnimmer-tri]

Review status: 0 of 39 files reviewed at latest revision, 2 unresolved discussions, some commit checks failed.

---

a discussion (no related file):
This PR removes linkstatic = 1 from call sites, but adds linkstatic = 1 only for cc_binary. I think most binary call sites did not already use linkstatic = 1, but most library call sites did use linkstatic = 1 but this PR undoes that.

I am curious to hear if those changes an intentional or an oversight?

Depending on that answer, I would also likely slightly prefer a first PR that just de-duplicates the logic but keeps the effective build rules (mostly) unchanged, and then a second PR that flips the defaults.

---

tools/drake.bzl, line 56 at r1 (raw file):

        linkstatic=1,
        **kwargs):
    """Creates a rule to declare a C++ binary."""

Probably the docs should explain the linker default?

---

Comments from Reviewable

[david-german-tri]

Review status: 0 of 39 files reviewed at latest revision, 2 unresolved discussions, some commit checks failed.

---

a discussion (no related file):

Previously, jwnimmer-tri (Jeremy Nimmer) wrote…

This PR removes linkstatic = 1 from call sites, but adds linkstatic = 1 only for cc_binary. I think most binary call sites did not already use linkstatic = 1, but most library call sites did use linkstatic = 1 but this PR undoes that.

I am curious to hear if those changes an intentional or an oversight?

Depending on that answer, I would also likely slightly prefer a first PR that just de-duplicates the logic but keeps the effective build rules (mostly) unchanged, and then a second PR that flips the defaults.

No, that's a mistake, and explains the CI failure. Will close this and start over.

---

Comments from Reviewable

[jwnimmer-tri]

a discussion (no related file):

Previously, david-german-tri (David German) wrote…

No, that's a mistake, and explains the CI failure. Will close this and start over.

This one is fairly close to being feature-neutral. Just needs somedrake.bzl edits, I think?

---

Comments from Reviewable