Add experimental support in Spago to use the new format for package sets

[f-f]

[f-f]

We now consider https://github.com/cdepillabout/purescript2nix/issues/4 a priority, so I'll pivot this issue to "Spago can use the new package sets"

[cdepillabout]

I'm not sure if it is relevant, but just in case, purescript2nix doesn't currently use Spago for building the PureScript packages: https://github.com/cdepillabout/purescript2nix/issues/3.

So https://github.com/cdepillabout/purescript2nix/issues/4 isn't blocked on support in Spago for the new package sets. Although, in practice, I can't imagine anyone seriously using purescript2nix unless Spago also has support for the new package sets.

[thomashoneyman]

It’s more that we didn’t consider new package sets to be a blocker for the registry alpha because we could work around it in Spago, but since we’d like to go ahead and ensure support for things like purescript2nix, then we really ought to just make sure we include the new package sets in the registry alpha after all.

[cdepillabout]

we really ought to just make sure we include the new package sets in the registry alpha after all.

Ah okay, great. Thanks for the clarification.

Let me cc @ddellacosta here since he had expressed intrerest in cdepillabout/purescript2nix#4 as well.

[f-f]

I'll move this issue to Spago's tracker

[f-f]

This issue is now about tracking the first experimental/draft implementation of https://github.com/purescript/spago/issues/842

[f-f]

Things ended up going in a totally different direction, and the most update prototype is: https://github.com/f-f/spaghetto

[f-f]

This said - I think the best course for integrating nix would be for Spago to create a lockfile, much like a lot of the existing *2nix solutions do. I have no context though on how it should look like, so any input on this is very welcome.

[f-f]

This is now well supported, closing. In particular see the docs on the lock file