[SYCL][Devops] Fix containers build

[AlexeySachkov]

We already have sycl user created by a base image, no need to repeat that.
This is a follow-up to #16290 to address an issue which was not caught by pre-commit.

[AlexeySachkov]

#7 [stage-0 2/8] RUN apt update && apt install -yqq wget
#7 0.247 
#7 0.247 WARNING: apt does not have a stable CLI interface. Use with caution in scripts.
#7 0.247 
#7 0.283 Reading package lists...
#7 1.007 E: Could not open lock file /var/lib/apt/lists/lock - open (13: Permission denied)
#7 1.007 E: Unable to lock directory /var/lib/apt/lists/
#7 ERROR: process "/bin/sh -c apt update && apt install -yqq wget" did not complete successfully: exit code: 100

Any ideas how to fix that? Doubt that it is caused by the change

[sarnex]

did we change anything about permissions or groups? sorry i forget

[AlexeySachkov]

did we change anything about permissions or groups? sorry i forget

Well, technically we do switch into sycl user in a base image, which is generally earlier than it used to be. But if that's an issue, then it would have failed like this even before this PR.

I'm not entirely sure which exact user is doing apt-get here

[sarnex]

i think it used be running as root but now its running as sycl. sycl should have sudo nopass, can you try just adding a sudo to the failing line?

[sarnex]

🙏

[sarnex]

 #7 0.324 sudo: a terminal is required to read the password; either use the -S option to read from standard input or configure an askpass helper
#7 0.325 sudo: a password is required

uuh

[AlexeySachkov]

 #7 0.324 sudo: a terminal is required to read the password; either use the -S option to read from standard input or configure an askpass helper
#7 0.325 sudo: a password is required

uuh

Perhaps I need to move USER sycl to the beginning. I'm not entirely sure how those base docker images work, i.e. it could be that we invoke those instructions as some "default" user which is not in sudoers

[sarnex]

@AlexeySachkov I think we need this in the _build image too.

I tried to do the same thing before but it kinda got push back

but if it was running as root before i would argue its actually slightly better with the above change

[AlexeySachkov]

@AlexeySachkov I think we need this in the _build image too.

I tried to do the same thing before but it kinda got push back

It seems to me that the main point of push back was --privileged? Let me try add sycl to sudoers

[sarnex]

oh yeah my bad

[AlexeySachkov]

Considering that we have reverted the original commit, I will close this for now in favor of a new PR which will be a complete re-submit of the whole refactoring.