Add Conan usage instructions in README

[AbrilRBS]

Description of changes:
Hi! This PR adds instructions for using the sdk with Conan, which we thought would be a nice addition in the README file.

Please let me know if this is okay, or if you would prefer it placed elsewhere.

The latest available version is 1.11.692, and we usually update the available version every few months/on user requests.

Check all that applies:

• Did a review by yourself.
• Added proper tests to cover this PR. (If tests are not applicable, explain.)
• Checked if this PR is a breaking (APIs have been changed) change.
• Checked if this PR will not introduce cross-platform inconsistent behavior.
• Checked if this PR would require a ReadMe/Wiki update.

Check which platforms you have built SDK on to verify the correctness of this PR.

• Linux
• Windows
• Android
• MacOS
• IOS
• Other Platforms

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that you can use, modify, copy, and redistribute this contribution, under the terms of your choice.

[sbiscigl]

You can install pre-built binaries

My main problem with this wording is that we are not ABI stable and using pre-built binaries assuming that we are customers may run into issues. Also we are not providing these binaries. We may in the future and would like to but for now its not us providing these binaries.

Also i think i would rather have this in our dev guide i.e. we have "Get the SDK using vcpkg". adding a section "Get the SDK using conan" I would be a fan of. If its alright with you I can port what you have in your PR to that page and add it there.

[AbrilRBS]

Hi @sbiscigl thanks for your insight!

My main problem with this wording is that we are not ABI stable

Note that the command only downloads the necessary recipe to locally build the package, and Conan does not assume ABI compatibility by default, it only considers existing binaries if and only if they are compatible.

I do understand the sentiment and I've updated the command example to force local recompilation in all cases, just like it's done fin the vcpkg case. Would the current wording work better?