Yes, many of these are "in-place" but will still allocate. I typically use the geev!/ggev!/geevx! routines, if you look at the source code you will see that the work arrays are still allocated inside the call. The in-place here (unfortunately) means only that the input is overwritten, not that there is no allocation.
The purpose of in-place operations is to avoid allocations, so this seems like an oversight.
Is this a matter of simply wrapping the 'right' LAPACK routines, or is there something missing in the interfaces that could be trivially added in principle?
It is entirely possible, but is not trivial, especially for the user who then needs to know "arcane knowledge" of BLAS/LAPACK work array sizes and flags. There was some discussion about this on github, but it sort of trailed off without a real resolution. I think it is considered too complicated/niche to be in base, and was recommended to be an external library, but nobody (myself included) seems particularly interested in what amounts to maintaining a fork of the entire BLAS package. The base devs would have more insight, but this is my view from the outside at least.
