Comment 3 for bug 1861304

We have an automated install script that was carried across from 16.04 based systems. I suspect that this may boil down to the odd naming convention on the libssl pacakages (i.e. the lack of a libssl package while there is a dev one ...). I'm trying out the libssl1.1 package right now and it looks like that will work. Would a separate bug need to be filed to ask about that naming issue?