# pkg_add -r chromium && pkg_add -r firefox



## RenSato (Nov 19, 2011)

According to http://www.freshports.org/www/chromium/ I run:


```
pkg_add -r chromium
Error: Unable to get [url]ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-8.2-release/Latest/chromium.tbz:[/url] File unavailable (e.g., file not found, no access)
pkg_add: unable to fetch 'ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-8.2-release/Latest/chromium.tbz' by URL
```

where is chromium.tbz then?

...same again with firefox but it is only giving me firefox3


```
pkg_add -r firefox
Fetching [url]ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-8.2-release/Latest/firefox.tbz[/url]... Done.
pkg_add: package 'firefox-3.6.13,1' or its older version already installed
```


please advise
RSato


----------



## DutchDaemon (Nov 19, 2011)

Packages from 8.2-RELEASE are quite old. Set your PACKAGESITE to 8-STABLE, e.g.

[cmd=]setenv PACKAGESITE "ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-8-stable/Latest/"[/cmd]


----------



## RenSato (Nov 20, 2011)

thanks, that finds it...

it is interesting I always assumed access to latest pkgs would be set by default.
is there an announcement ususally when pkg repos switches over from release to stable or is stable available when os version is released?


----------



## DutchDaemon (Nov 20, 2011)

RenSato said:
			
		

> it is interesting I always assumed access to latest pkgs would be set by default.



That is simply a wrong assumption. The version you're running determines the package repository you use by default. Also note that using -STABLE packages on a -RELEASE _may_ fail sometimes due to (rare) library changes. If you want to run up-to-date versions of everything, use ports(7) rather than packages.


----------



## RenSato (Nov 21, 2011)

Thanks your advice, it is much appreciated.
I did run into trouble with packages libraries etc and agree with you ports are a more reliable way to go.
However, would you advise portupgrade with the "-PP" option or would I still be likely to run into similar problems as with switching "PACKAGESITE".


----------



## pkubaj (Nov 21, 2011)

If you want to use packages so badly, why don't you switch to -STABLE?
And you would be better off using ports-mgmt/portmaster.


----------



## RenSato (Nov 23, 2011)

pkubaj,

i'm not dead set on any option at this time. I'm just here scraping brains 

what preference over portmaster v portupgrade do you have?

ren


----------



## Martillo1 (Nov 23, 2011)

The only advantage I see is when installing (portinstall) not having to give the subports directory.


----------



## pkubaj (Nov 24, 2011)

portupgrade is dependent on ruby, and creates its own base of ports. portmaster is a shell script, with no dependencies from ports. It uses only the tools in the base. Also, it doesn't create its own base and seems to be faster than portupgrade.


----------



## RenSato (Nov 24, 2011)

pkubaj said:
			
		

> portupgrade is dependant on ruby, and creates its own base of ports. portmaster is a shell script, with no dependencies from ports. It uses only the tools in the base. Also, it doesn't create its own base and seems to be faster than portupgrade.



pkubaj,

yes, a shell script is far more preferable to me than aforementioned ruby dependencies. I'll check it out.


----------

