package should actually package each of the cross-compiled configurations with --cross

[Gedochao]

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
Currently, passing --cross with package cross-compiles against all configured Scala versions, but only packages the first one.

//> using scala 2.13.16 2.13.15 2.13.14
object Main extends App {
  println(util.Properties.versionNumberString)
}

scala-cli package . --cross --power
# The `--cross` option is experimental
# Please bear in mind that non-ideal user experience should be expected.
# If you encounter any bugs or have feedback to share, make sure to reach out to the maintenance team at https://github.com/VirtusLab/scala-cli
# Compiling project (Scala 2.13.16, JVM (23))
# Compiled project (Scala 2.13.16, JVM (23))
# Compiling project (Scala 2.13.15, JVM (23))
# Compiled project (Scala 2.13.15, JVM (23))
# Compiling project (Scala 2.13.14, JVM (23))
# Compiled project (Scala 2.13.14, JVM (23))
# Wrote ~/Main, run it with
#  ./Main
./Main
# 2.13.16

Describe the solution you'd like
I would expect to not just cross-compile against each version, but also package each of them.
So I'd expect:

scala-cli package . --cross --power
# The `--cross` option is experimental
# Please bear in mind that non-ideal user experience should be expected.
# If you encounter any bugs or have feedback to share, make sure to reach out to the maintenance team at https://github.com/VirtusLab/scala-cli
# Compiling project (Scala 2.13.16, JVM (23))
# Compiled project (Scala 2.13.16, JVM (23))
# Compiling project (Scala 2.13.15, JVM (23))
# Compiled project (Scala 2.13.15, JVM (23))
# Compiling project (Scala 2.13.14, JVM (23))
# Compiled project (Scala 2.13.14, JVM (23))
# Wrote ~/Main_2.13.16, ~/Main_2.13.15, ~/Main_2.13.14 
# Run them with
#  ./Main_x
./Main_2.13.16
# 2.13.16
./Main_2.13.15
# 2.13.15
./Main_2.13.14
# 2.13.14

Describe alternatives you've considered
The current behaviour is counter-intuitive (and inconsistent with how test or publish behave, where they respectively test or publish against all cross-compiled versions), but if we were to skip on running each option, we should at least log an explanation on what and why, as per:

• Add extra logging for --cross #3026

Additional context

• relevant tests added in Add tests for the current behaviour of --cross #3589
• similar issue with the run command in run should actually run each of the cross-compiled configurations with --cross #3590