Thanks. I actually gave the current layout a good amount of thought. Some of those thoughts are documented in comments in package_repo.bzl.

The //foo/... namespace is reserved for things related to package foo that aren't the library itself. Currently the only items are wheel and sdist, but in the future my plan was to add scripts and other things. This change would generate a conflicting target for the wheel package, since //wheel:wheel already exists and means "the .whl file for the 'wheel'".

And for the dash vs. underscore situation: I decided to stick with python's own package normalization (described here), which is fully compatible with Bazel target names.

So I won't accept this as is. Any change would have to be some alternative, configurable layout type, or some additional repo that can be added on top. Ideally we could just tell Gazelle how to find packages somehow, rather than it assuming a particular naming scheme.

Telling Gazelle how to handle labels is a fair point.

What are your thoughts on handling py_console_script_binary

What are your thoughts on handling py_console_script_binary

My plan is to put package binaries under //foo/bin:some_tool.

But unlike rules_python where wheel contents can be analyzed in repository rules (and thus targets for entrypoint scripts can be created), pycross can't scan wheels and create targets in build rules. So any binaries/scripts that will be available under bin will need to be called out by the user ahead of time.

For how I am using this workaround to get the py_console_script going

load("@rules_python//python/entry_points:py_console_script_binary.bzl", _py_console_script_binary = "py_console_script_binary")

def py_console_script_binary(name, **kwargs):
    """
    This is a workaround for the fact that rules_pycross doesn't provide dist-info targets.
    name: Name of the binary target.
    **kwargs: Arguments to pass to py_console_script_binary.
    """
    genrule_name = "generate_{}_entrypoint_points_txt".format(name)

    native.genrule(
        name = genrule_name,
        srcs = [kwargs["pkg"]],
        outs = ["{}.dist-info/entry_points.txt".format(name)],
        cmd = """
        cat $$(find $(SRCS) -name entry_points.txt) > $(@D)/entry_points.txt
        """,
    )

    _py_console_script_binary(
        name = name,
        entry_points_txt = genrule_name,
        **kwargs
    )

@ewianda have you figured out how to make rules_python's Gazelle plugin compatible with rules_pycross targets? Perhaps there is a related issue in rules_python repo?
upd: created an issue #100 for discussing further steps