Frank Schoenmann

> That means that the component, understood as the package binary included in the SBOM, was not supplied by ConanCenter in the majority of cases. And I don't think `Conan`...

@jkowalleck I'm aware of these facts but they're not particularly helpful in determining the outcome of this PR, so I have some questions: * Do you agree or disagree, that...

@jkowalleck Nothing in this whole PR is about `$.metadata.authors` but about `$.components[].author` (and `$.components[].supplier` and their difference). I don't know if you're misunderstanding me on purpose but it makes this...

@jkowalleck > it was you how told that they were looking for a solution for "Author of SBOM Data" according to NTIA compliance. I did not. This whole PR is...

@memsharded Yes it always happens and also with the new 2.4.0 release. I haven't tried with another recipe yet but this one is extremely simple (see below). I have the...

@memsharded You're right, if I remove the `python_requires` property (and related code), it works. However, running `conan create` manually on the recipe works also with the Python requirements.

> Regarding the fix in #16420, can you please confirm if the `python_requires` lives in the same "local-recipes-index" repo than the recipes using it? Seems a difficult to change thing,...

@arxanas I'm pretty sure it's tabs but I can check it tomorrow. Thanks for the reference to the other ticket; I tried to find similar issues but didn't know what...

/verify

@memsharded Thank you for the quick reply. Yes I understand, I wouldn't expect that to be the default but an opt-in feature if the user wants to assume that "risk"....