[lint] protobufer types should(n't) be named after RPC name

[JordiSubira]

Currently the linting complains if we want to use the well-known types google.protobuf.Empty https://protobuf.dev/reference/protobuf/google.protobuf/#empty.

proto/daemon/v1/daemon.proto:40:19:RPC request type "Empty" should be named "PortRangeRequest" or "DaemonServicePortRangeRequest".

In the same document, they encourage to use it to avoid duplicity and having a myriad of protobuf types which are empty. Is there a good reason why we would like to have one empty type for request?

[matzf]

Done, in #4344 we've set rpc_allow_google_protobuf_empty_requests/rpc_allow_google_protobuf_empty_responses to true in buf.yaml.

FWIW, the rationale for disallowing the Empty type is source code compatibility (which is what the tooling that "buf" sells wants to achieve); if Empty needs to be changed to something non-empty, the generated wrapper code will have different types. In the wire format, this is perfectly compatible. I don't see that we're striving for this level of automatic and complete API compatibility, so allowing to use Empty is fine.