Minimal Openssl v1.1 compatibility patch.

[jameshilliard]

@droark See if this works.

[droark]

Hi. My apologies for taking awhile to get back to you. I think this is okay but I need to double check it tomorrow on another VM. (Honestly, the Mac builds are kinda borked at the moment, no matter what, short of going back to an older version on a VM. That's one reason why I'm eager to get on with Py3 and Qt5.)

[goatpig]

Please PR this to dev.

[jameshilliard]

I don't think this was relevant for dev.

[droark]

I could be wrong but I think what James was trying to do was write something for, say, 0.96.6, if it ever came out. Due to some changes in brew and macOS, Armory won't necessarily run on the latest versions of macOS. One could argue that some sort of macOS-only release would be a good idea. That'd be my preference, albeit a soft one. Right now, due to various changes, compiling Armory on Macs is a pain in the butt, and will continue to be one until the Py3/Qt5 switch is complete. (In fact, I don't know if it'd make it into 0.97 but I'd really like to overhaul how the Mac build is handled. It's a major anachronism as written, and not ideal to support. Relying on brew and pip would make things a lot easier.)

[goatpig]

I can't do releases right now, as I'm in Sweden and my offline signer for releases are back at home.

My idea was, since the new Python code is completely C++ agnostic, the new macOS build system around py3/qt5 ought to be super simple, and opportunity to purge out the current stuff which is costly specifically because of Qt4.

This PR says Openssl and lws on macOS may require the linkage, so I figured it could make it into dev. If I'm wrong about that, I'd rather hold off on a minor release until we kind of timeline Qt5 is going to be.

[goatpig]

Where does this PR stand now?