validate required fields

[caarlos0]

maybe we should add a step to validate that required fields were provided?

I'm not sure about debs, but RPMs seem to like to complain about missing required fields :)

see goreleaser/goreleaser#1229 for more context

[pixdrift]

I think the following is related as the user/group strings should really be required (eg. fallback to root):
#216

[erikgeiser]

We should also print warnings to stderr when top level config options are not supported by the package format that is currently being built. If a configuration option is top level and not package specific, users would otherwise expect it to have an effect on all formats. I think apk files currently don't support some options.

[drewstinnett]

We ran in to something similar here with debs (I think 😁). Noticed a couple things:

• When the deb is missing a maintainer, you get a nasty warning on the command line. It still installs and works fine, but I get confused messages from folks haha...wondering if making this required (for deb only?) would be useful...unsure if there would be a good 'default' to this
• When a deb is missing the 'priority' field, it will install with no warning, however, certain tools (OneGet for example) will not accept a deb package without 'priority' being set. According to the docs, this field should always be set anyway, so wondering if we should just default it to 'extra', but let folks override still if they want

Happy to submit a PR if these sound reasonable!

❤️nfpm

[caarlos0]

sure go ahead @drewstinnett 🙏

[caarlos0]

this was fixed in #372