fix: ipns protobuf namespace conflict

[guillaumemichel]

Context

To solve protobuf namespace conflicts, #789 renamed record.proto to ipns-record.proto breaking protobuf dependency import since the filename has now changed. I think there is a better way to solve #788.

Proposed solution

While the go_package option set in the .proto file isn't included in the registered protobuf name, we can use a custom Makefile to register the full package name. This seems like a cleaner approach, since it registers the protobuf with the full package path, instead of just ipns-record.proto, and it doesn't break existing record.proto imports.

Protobuf package source before and after.

Also see libp2p/go-libp2p-record#62

Would that work for you @dereknola?

[welcome]

Thank you for submitting this PR!
A maintainer will be here shortly to review it.
We are super grateful, but we are also overloaded! Help us by making sure that:

• The context for this PR is clear, with relevant discussion, decisions
  and stakeholders linked/mentioned.

• Your contribution itself is clear (code comments, self-review for the
  rest) and in its best form. Follow the code contribution
  guidelines
  if they apply.

Getting other community members to do a review would be great help too on complex PRs (you can ask in the chats/forums). If you are unsure about something, just leave us a comment.
Next steps:

• A maintainer will triage and assign priority to this PR, commenting on
  any missing things and potentially assigning a reviewer for high
  priority items.

• The PR gets reviews, discussed and approvals as needed.

• The PR is merged by maintainers when it has been approved and comments addressed.

We currently aim to provide initial feedback/triaging within two business days. Please keep an eye on any labelling actions, as these will indicate priorities and status of your contribution.
We are very grateful for your contribution!

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 72.22222% with 30 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 60.52%. Comparing base (de52bc8) to head (fbe6ba1).
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
ipns/pb/record.pb.go	72.22%	29 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #794   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   60.52%   60.52%           
=======================================
  Files         245      245           
  Lines       31130    31130           
=======================================
+ Hits        18841    18842    +1     
+ Misses      10613    10611    -2     
- Partials     1676     1677    +1     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
ipns/record.go	68.21% <ø> (ø)
ipns/pb/record.pb.go	72.22% <72.22%> (ø)

... and 11 files with indirect coverage changes

[dereknola]

That works for K3s, I'm not seeing any conflicts when I inject your PR commit.

[gammazero]

Might be better to avoid makefile. See comments.

[gammazero]

Lets merge this before the next boxo version and kubo RC2. We can decide between Makefile and go:generate in a later PR.

[gammazero]

Using go:generate also means it can be run from a top-level directory, go generate ./..., without having to know where a makefile is located