From Bugzilla Helper: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows; U; AIIEEEE!; Win98; Windows 98; en-US; Gecko masquerading as IE; should it matter?; rv:1.8b) Gecko/20050217 Description of problem: If you type "locale -a" it shows locales with charsets such as "utf8". But there is no charset "utf8". There is a "UTF-8" one though. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): glibc-2.3.5-10.3 How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1.type "locale -a" 2. 3. Actual Results: C POSIX aa_DJ aa_DJ.iso88591 aa_DJ.utf8 aa_ER aa_ER.utf8 .... Expected Results: C POSIX aa_DJ aa_DJ.ISO-8859-1 aa_DJ.UTF-8 aa_ER aa_ER.UTF-8 ... Additional info: Just listing directories in /usr/lib/locale is not the right way to enumerate locales. The directories are named with different shceme to actual character set and used in LC_* environment variables.
That's not misleading info, charset names are canonicalized and e.g. .UTF-8 is equivalent to .utf8, to .UTF8, .utf-8, .UTF______________8 etc.
Where is that documented? Wouldn't it be proper for the user to only deal with offical names (eg UTF-8) and not various mangled/canocialized names?
Why does it need to be documented? The locale names are an implementation detail according to POSIX, and no matter whether you use say en_US.utf8 or en_US.UTF-8 it will work the same.
If you do "locale -m" there is no "utf8". Yet if you do "locale -a" you get a whole bunch of character sets that according to to "locale -m" do not exist. It would be nice if "locale -m" and "locale -a" were complete and consistent.