Remove pulse-related passes

[eliarbel]

This commit removes the calibration builder and pulse-gate passes which were deprecated in Qiskit 1.3, together with the pulse package itself. Related unit tests have also been removed.

Details and comments

Part of #13662

[qiskit-bot]

One or more of the following people are relevant to this code:

• @Qiskit/terra-core
• @mtreinish
• @nkanazawa1989

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 13182798192

Details

• 1 of 1 (100.0%) changed or added relevant line in 1 file are covered.
• 116 unchanged lines in 13 files lost coverage.
• Overall coverage decreased (-0.1%) to 88.45%

---

Files with Coverage Reduction	New Missed Lines	%
qiskit/pulse/schedule.py	1	88.42%
qiskit/pulse/instruction_schedule_map.py	1	95.9%
qiskit/transpiler/passes/scheduling/alignments/check_durations.py	1	77.78%
crates/accelerate/src/target_transpiler/nullable_index_map.rs	1	67.17%
crates/qasm2/src/lex.rs	3	91.73%
crates/accelerate/src/two_qubit_decompose.rs	3	91.99%
qiskit/transpiler/preset_passmanagers/generate_preset_pass_manager.py	3	96.2%
qiskit/transpiler/passes/optimization/normalize_rx_angle.py	4	91.49%
crates/accelerate/src/target_transpiler/instruction_properties.rs	5	48.28%
qiskit/providers/backend_compat.py	8	88.42%

Totals
Change from base Build 13181611285:	-0.1%
Covered Lines:	78873
Relevant Lines:	89172

---

💛 - Coveralls

[ElePT]

The PR looks good, and it should help unblock the situation in #13793. There are only a couple of lint complaints left that unfortunately github doesn't let me suggest changes for.

[ElePT]

Lint is indicating that the inst_map argument in generate_scheduling is no longer used, if we were to remove it (why keep it), the reno should also mention it.

[eliarbel]

Yes, the argument is no longer used within generate_scheduling itself indeed (and I addressed the lint warning about that in this PR), but I was thinking about mentioning it in a different reno bullet that removes inst_map from all the other functions (e.g. generate_preset_pass_manager), together possibly with more removals in the transpiler/circuit area rather than here. So if you're OK, I would keep this reno bullet about passes

[ElePT]

As long as we don't forget about it, it definitely makes more sense in an independent reno. I sometimes create the reno bullet in one PR and extend it in following ones, but this is a small enough change (and close enough time-wise) that we probably don't need to do that.