Right now we use the build number as the release number for our packaging. This is not how release numbers are normally set and so can be confusing for users. Normally release numbers are increased whenever something changes with the packaging itself, rather than the stuff inside the package. The release number is also reset to "1" every time a new version comes out. Looking at Google Chrome (another commercial and proprietary packager), they follow this: google-chrome-stable-89.0.4389.90-1.x86_64 There are two practical problems to solve: a) We set the release number to the build number, but we also do the opposite as rpmbuild is currently an integral part of how we build things. We'd likely need to fix bug 3338 and bug 4885 first in order to break this dependency and make release number and build number independent. b) New release numbers makes it easy to upgrade development builds. This won't affect users as they should only upgrade between versions, but our developers will be constantly upgrading to newer builds. For them it would be useful if the version or release number somehow constantly increases during development.
On the same note, packaging formats that don't naturally have release numbers should probably have those removed. E.g. the macOS .iso.
