Upgrade OpenSSL to 3.0.10.

[punytroll]

This is a small update to the OpenSSL library from 3.0.8 to 3.0.10.

I know that this step is really insignificant and definitely too late to be useful, but since I have no prior knowledge of the build process and it seems very involved, I want to go in small steps.

I indend to proceed to later versions, but require early feedback.

[punytroll]

It seems, I need some guidance here: with the second commit, I tried linking with libatomic to address some undefined symbols in the build on Alpine x86. But I guess this is NOT the correct way to do it, because generally the dependent libraries seem to be defined by the OpenSSL configuration script and should find their way into the meson build system by some template expanions magic.

Anyway, now all checks pass and I am a bit confused about how to proceed. Any ideas? (@nazar-pc, ...)

[tp-m]

There's also a PR to update to 3.0.17 here fwiw: #2308

[punytroll]

@tp-m Yes, I know, and I had a long look at it, but was completely stumped by all the things that @amyspark had added to the build. Also, because there has been no development for nigh on 4 months, the logs are not visible anymore, I couldn't reevaluate the pipeline, and I did not understand the problems with the perl packages, mentioned in the last comment, I abandoned looking at that. It is in the bback of my mind for support on Windows, but I really wanted to take a small step first.

[nazar-pc]

I'm not a maintainer of the wrapdb, so not much depends on me specifically. I was also lucky not to deal with OpenSSL any time recently.

[punytroll]

Ah, I see. Sorry for pinging you - I saw you as an initiator and merger of one of the last OpenSSL wrap updates, so I thought you might want to weigh in.

[nazar-pc]

I did create an initial wrap and helped to maintain it, but I'm not the only one and my interest has faded over time to be completely honest.

[punytroll]

I would love to continue to more recent version, but I want to know whether this PR is acceptable?!

@amyspark Do you have any input on this PR or on the problems I faced and solved in commit 2? I realize that your PR would be much more benefitial, but given that it doesn't move forward, I wanted to get to grips with this myself.

Who would be able and willing to merge this?

[threema-lenny]

I wonder why #186 became stale and what would be missing to finish it but anything that makes a newer OpenSSL version with support for DTLS 1.3 + MLKEMs happen would be much appreciated.

[punytroll]

I was unaware of that PR! @xclaesse, your PR #186 has seen to updates for 3 years, but I very much like the direction you're are going there. Can we revitalise OpenSSL wrapping by getting this PR through and then continuing with your PR? Maybe I can help you there as I am very much interested in simplifying and updating the build bprocess for OpenSSL (professionally - my employer is requiring OpenSSL. So I do have the time for this, I'm just lacking some knowledge!)