libatomic dependency may be problematic

A dependency to libatomic was added in #400.

The libatomic inclusion might be concerning because it isn't listed in the LSB at https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/LSB_5.0.0/LSB-Common/LSB-Common/requirements.html.

While the LSB may not be the absolute requirements for our distros, deviation from it is concerning and needs to be researched. We can't just introduce new external system dependencies without validating that the most minimal of Linux distros ship the library. If a library is distributed by e.g. the compiler toolchain, that's bad for portability.

I believe I've ran into issues with libatomic in the past. Check the history of the OpenSSL build scripts.

I'd feel much better if libatomic.so linking advertising and the Rust validation is exclusive to MIPS at the moment. And even that may be too lenient. We would need to find a MIPS Linux distro and see where libatomic comes from.

Review issue #400 and the history of the OpenSSL build scripts first, focusing on where libatomic.so linking and Rust validation were introduced. Check whether minimal Linux distributions provide libatomic, including a MIPS Linux distribution, and determine whether the dependency can be limited to MIPS or otherwise removed. Done means the portability concern is validated and the supported dependency behavior is documented or corrected.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.