record.proto is too generic and results in conflict with other packages

[dereknola]

Background

I work on the k3s project, which has a large dependency trail. Recently we attempted to move to a new version of spegel, which pulled in new versions of libp2p/go-libp2p-kad-dht which bumped boxo from from v0.10.0 -> v0.24.3

Issue

All these dependencies thrown together has resulted in conflicts around record.proto registration:

panic: proto: file "record.proto" is already registered
	See https://protobuf.dev/reference/go/faq#namespace-conflict

Looking thru our vendor list you can see that there are a multitude of dependencies that use a very generic record.proto for some protobuf.

grep -rF 'record.proto' vendor/
vendor/go.etcd.io/etcd/server/v3/wal/walpb/record.pb.go:// source: record.proto
vendor/go.etcd.io/etcd/server/v3/wal/walpb/record.pb.go:func init() { proto.RegisterFile("record.proto", fileDescriptor_bf94fd919e302a1d) }
vendor/github.com/libp2p/go-libp2p-record/pb/record.pb.go:// source: record.proto
vendor/github.com/libp2p/go-libp2p-record/pb/record.pb.go:func init() { proto.RegisterFile("record.proto", fileDescriptor_bf94fd919e302a1d) }
vendor/github.com/libp2p/go-libp2p-record/pb/record.proto:// `protoc --gogo_out=. record.proto`
vendor/github.com/libp2p/go-libp2p-kad-dht/pb/dht.proto:import "github.com/libp2p/go-libp2p-record/pb/record.proto";
vendor/github.com/libp2p/go-libp2p/p2p/protocol/identify/pb/identify.proto:  // github.com/libp2p/go-libp2p/core/peer/pb/peer_record.proto for message definitions.
vendor/github.com/libp2p/go-libp2p/p2p/protocol/identify/pb/identify.pb.go:	// github.com/libp2p/go-libp2p/core/peer/pb/peer_record.proto for message definitions.
vendor/github.com/libp2p/go-libp2p/core/peer/pb/peer_record.pb.go:// source: core/peer/pb/peer_record.proto
vendor/github.com/ipfs/boxo/ipns/pb/record.pb.go:// source: record.proto
vendor/github.com/ipfs/boxo/ipns/record.go://go:generate protoc -I=pb --go_out=pb --go_opt=module=github.com/ipfs/boxo/ipns/pb pb/record.proto

Looking at the FAQ around how to resolve this that https://protobuf.dev/reference/go/faq#namespace-conflict, it seems that boxo does not define a unique enough option go_package for its protobuf. Additionally, it is likely a good idea to just change the name entirely from something so generic as record.

[welcome]

Thank you for submitting your first issue to this repository! A maintainer will be here shortly to triage and review.
In the meantime, please double-check that you have provided all the necessary information to make this process easy! Any information that can help save additional round trips is useful! We currently aim to give initial feedback within two business days. If this does not happen, feel free to leave a comment.
Please keep an eye on how this issue will be labeled, as labels give an overview of priorities, assignments and additional actions requested by the maintainers:

• "Priority" labels will show how urgent this is for the team.
• "Status" labels will show if this is ready to be worked on, blocked, or in progress.
• "Need" labels will indicate if additional input or analysis is required.

Finally, remember to use https://discuss.ipfs.io if you just need general support.

[lidel]

Triage notes:

• sounds sensible, thanks for reporting!
• review Define a go_package for protobuf, rename to a more unique ipns-record.proto #789
• open similar PR in kad-dht

[dereknola]

Thanks for covering this and the follow on Issue, I appreciate it.