It is confusing that some packages, which exist only in binary form and only for one of architectures (mostly for x86), specify their format (suffix bin( in the name, but don't specify the architecture. I propose that the package name must be either without any bin, or it must say something like "package-bin-x86". It's not fair for non-x86 architectures and it's a fact of ignorance and of bad culture to omit the architecture name when we talk about binaries. Linux is not OS for x86, so is not Gentoo. The OS can work on many architecture platforms supported by the kernel and by the distro installer.x86 is one of them. It's just happened that x86 is more popular.
well since the package is masked on the architecture i dont see why its a problem if a binary package is masked, its probably not for your arch ... you can have 1 ebuild support multiple ARCH's even if it is a binary package in other words, i find this bug INVALID unless there is something i'm missing ...
many packages come distributed in binary form for many diff archs ... having different packages just for diff arch's is inane
