Bump up packages to include latest pillar changes

[shjala]

Description

Follow up to #5487, bump up packages to include latest pillar changes.

PR dependencies

List all dependencies of this PR (when applicable, otherwise remove this
section).

How to test and validate this PR

Please describe how the changes in this PR can be validated or verified. For
example:

• If your PR fixes a bug, outline the steps to confirm the issue is resolved.
• If your PR introduces a new feature, explain how to test and validate it.

This will be used

1. to provide test scenarios for the QA team
2. by a reviewer to validate the changes in this PR.

The first is especially important, so, please make sure to provide as much
detail as possible.

If it's covered by an automated test, please mention it here.

Changelog notes

Text in this section will be used to generate the changelog entry for
release notes. The consumers of this are end users, not developers.
So, provide a clear and short description of what is changed in the PR from
the end user perspective. If it changes only tooling or some internal
implementation, put a note like "No user-facing changes" or "None".

PR Backports

For all current LTS branches, please state explicitly if this PR should be
backported or not. This section is used by our scripts to track the backports,
so, please, do not omit it.

Here is the list of current LTS branches (it should be always up to date):

• 14.5-stable
• 13.4-stable

For example, if this PR fixes a bug in a feature that was introduced in 14.5,
you can write:

- 14.5-stable: To be backported.
- 13.4-stable: No, as the feature is not available there.

Also, to the PRs that should be backported into any stable branch, please
add a label stable.

Checklist

• I've provided a proper description
• I've added the proper documentation
• I've tested my PR on amd64 device
• I've tested my PR on arm64 device
• I've written the test verification instructions
• I've set the proper labels to this PR

For backport PRs (remove it if it's not a backport):

• I've added a reference link to the original PR
• PR's title follows the template

And the last but not least:

• I've checked the boxes above, or I've provided a good reason why I didn't
  check them.

Please, check the boxes above after submitting the PR in interactive mode.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 28.08%. Comparing base (2281599) to head (f1c6e17).
⚠️ Report is 264 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #5496      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   19.52%   28.08%   +8.55%     
==========================================
  Files          19       19              
  Lines        3021     2314     -707     
==========================================
+ Hits          590      650      +60     
+ Misses       2310     1520     -790     
- Partials      121      144      +23     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[rene]

Please, update hashes for eve-recovertpm...

Error: /home/runner/work/eve/eve/pkg/debug/Dockerfile uses lfedge/eve-recovertpm:17d72851d7001df1c6047ad7d1d1e623e0b83b86 but 592c6fce71b6ba142ad8cfaaef827c8b64b9fa2b is built in this repo

[eriknordmark]

LGTM

[eriknordmark]

There is also a need to fix a docker hash:
Error: /home/runner/work/eve/eve/pkg/debug/Dockerfile uses lfedge/eve-recovertpm:17d72851d7001df1c6047ad7d1d1e623e0b83b86 but 592c6fce71b6ba142ad8cfaaef827c8b64b9fa2b is built in this repo

[shjala]

@rene @eriknordmark
I might need to update the go mods once more after #5494 merge, I'll update this and fix the hash once that is done.

[eriknordmark]

LGTM

[eriknordmark]

@shjala Given the docker hash incosistencies, does this need to be rebased on current master?

[eriknordmark]

@shjala Given the docker hash incosistencies, does this need to be rebased on current master?

[shjala]

Closing this one, in favour or #5591.