@weltling, thanks for your PR! By analyzing the history of the files in this pull request, we identified @yangtse, @mback2k and @msnelling to be potential reviewers.

I'll happily review these and try to give them a spin if @welting can eyeball #1259 - otherwise it will never progress.

Thanks for keeping an eye, @rodwiddowson. This PR wasn't planned in the scope of #1322, but came out where i started the nghttp2 integration. I've just filed another one #1322, which targets the actual OpenSSL issue we have in a naive manner without breaking the current build approach. Basically, what were also discussed, is that one would keep the current approach, while making the lib names configurable. That's why I was wondering about #1259, as it seemed it were agreed to go by the suggestion to do it incrementally. We'll now need to choose a way to integrate these works somehow, but there will be for sure some merge conflicts. I would still suggest to go by an incremental integration, so we can thoroughly check every step and ensure the old way works, to hopefully get the whole accepted.

Thanks.

Thanks, squashed and merged!