Add "boringssl" to the list of possible SSL implementations

[danfe]

Summary

Currently, security/boringssl is not officially listed as one of the OpenSSL alternatives, even though Uses/ssl.mk detects it correctly, e.g., things seem to work just fine with DEFAULT_VERSIONS+=ssl=boringssl. Is there anything else needed except what's in the attached patch?

[adamw]

I suspect that it's not been listed mainly because we haven't had a userbase segment express interest in widespread testing of it.

My gut is that if we were to start down this path, we should at start with an exp-run with it as the default to see how much of the ports tree builds successfully with it.

[danfe]

In D20881#452589, @adamw wrote:

My gut is that if we were to start down this path, we should at start with an exp-run with it as the default to see how much of the ports tree builds successfully with it.

Fair enough. TBH, I'm quite unhappy with all these OpenSSL forks which are often incompatible with each other. This is such an ugly mess. OTOH, I have a port which requires BoringSSL, and seeing security/boringssl port which, however, one cannot officially depend on is a bit confusing.

That said, it would be nice to have it listed, as it would allow porting of more (modern) software.

[mat]

No, just no. boringssl cannot be used as a ssl provider. Mainly because it needs cmake that needs curl that needs the SSL provider.