It'd be nice if you could test a build with that tiny workaround and tell me whether it's worth asking for an upload in that state. /proc-based files get some ˙˙no such file or directory˙˙, but others might become useful when it comes to debugging other programs, so we might want to have an half-functional lsof instead of none at all.
Neither "lsof /lib/ld-2.9.so" neither "lsof -i" produces expected output.
IMHO, in this case none is better.
On the other hand, adapting lsof 4.82 for us should not be too hard:
* The March 25, 2009 revision (4.82): corrects an over-zealous test that
causes lsof to produce no ouput when the HASSECURITY and HASNOSOCKSECURITTY
have been specified at lsof build time; corrects Solaris 10 and above
<sys/utsname.h> include/compilation problem and eliminates other Solaris
10 compilation warnings; supports FreeBSD 7.1-PRELEASE; incorporates
changes to Darwin lsof, supplied by Apple; enables FreeBSD use of the
${MAKE} variable; improves Solaris VxFS library location test; updates
Solaris 10 ZFS support to ZFS pool version 10; updates interpretation of
Solaris 10 device numbers; adds rudimentary Solaris 10 sharedfs support;
fixes a bug in Solaris 10 zone handling; adapts to changes in FreeBSD
8.0-CURRENT device number computation; selects correct Solaris VxFS library
when configuring for gcc; adapts to loss of FreeBSD KAME IPv6
accommodations; adapts to FreeBSD 7.2.
Petr