Upgrade to score_lifecycle 0.5.0

[NicolasFussberger]

This PR upgrades time to score_lifecycle 0.5.0

Note:
The lifecycle bazel module was renamed score_lifecycle_health (last release 0.4.0) -> score_lifecycle (first release 0.5.0)
The switch from score_lifecycle_health 0.4.0 to score_lifecycle to 0.5.0 has no changes other than the module rename.

Updating to score_lifecycle 0.5.0 required updating to baselibs 0.2.12 first.
Feel free to close this PR and do the migration step by step:

• update to baselibs 0.2.12 PR#140
• update to score_lifecycle_health 0.4.0 PR#196
• update to score_lifecycle 0.5.0 (only module rename, no other changes)

[github-actions]

License Check Results

🚀 The license check job ran with the Bazel command:

bazel run //:license-check

Status: ⚠️ Needs Review

Click to expand output

[License Check Output]
Extracting Bazel installation...
Starting local Bazel server (8.6.0) and connecting to it...
INFO: Invocation ID: 559a3f1b-cb3b-4964-9dd7-2260ae500a01
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
WARNING: For repository 'platforms', the root module requires module version platforms@1.0.0, but got platforms@1.1.0 in the resolved dependency graph. Please update the version in your MODULE.bazel or set --check_direct_dependencies=off
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Computing main repo mapping: 
Loading: 
Loading: 3 packages loaded
Analyzing: target //:license-check (4 packages loaded, 0 targets configured)
Analyzing: target //:license-check (4 packages loaded, 0 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (73 packages loaded, 10 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (133 packages loaded, 556 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (159 packages loaded, 3550 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (164 packages loaded, 6259 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (169 packages loaded, 6308 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (169 packages loaded, 6308 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (172 packages loaded, 8195 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (174 packages loaded, 10147 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (176 packages loaded, 11429 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (176 packages loaded, 11429 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (176 packages loaded, 11429 targets configured)

Analyzing: target //:license-check (176 packages loaded, 11429 targets configured)

INFO: Analyzed target //:license-check (177 packages loaded, 11555 targets configured).
INFO: From Generating Dash formatted dependency file ...:
INFO: Successfully converted 2 packages from Cargo.lock to bazel-out/k8-fastbuild/bin/formatted.txt
[13 / 16] JavaToolchainCompileClasses external/rules_java+/toolchains/platformclasspath_classes; 0s disk-cache, processwrapper-sandbox
[14 / 16] JavaToolchainCompileBootClasspath external/rules_java+/toolchains/platformclasspath.jar; 0s disk-cache, processwrapper-sandbox
INFO: Found 1 target...
Target //:license.check.license_check up-to-date:
  bazel-bin/license.check.license_check
  bazel-bin/license.check.license_check.jar
INFO: Elapsed time: 34.310s, Critical Path: 2.46s
INFO: 16 processes: 12 internal, 3 processwrapper-sandbox, 1 worker.
INFO: Build completed successfully, 16 total actions
INFO: Running command line: bazel-bin/license.check.license_check ./formatted.txt <args omitted>
usage: org.eclipse.dash.licenses.cli.Main [-batch <int>] [-cd <url>]
       [-confidence <int>] [-ef <url>] [-excludeSources <sources>] [-help] [-lic
       <url>] [-project <shortname>] [-repo <url>] [-review] [-summary <file>]
       [-timeout <seconds>] [-token <token>]

[NEOatNHNG]

Looks good to me in general. Thank you @NicolasFussberger for also updating baselibs for us. The only thing that we should check whether the removal of py_unittest_qnx_test has any impact on us (was also previously only an empty stub in baselibs). Can you confirm that it is OK to remove @lavrovvalera @BjoernAtBosch ?

[pawelrutkaq]

Guess we doubled the work #198 :D

[pawelrutkaq]

#190

[BjoernAtBosch]

LGTM
I think, the "py_unittest_qnx_test stuff" can be removed as those test are anyway triggered via cc_test and similar rules